News Article | March 15, 2016
The Senior Vice President for Research & Development at Volvo Cars, Dr Peter Mertens, has called for the automotive industry to create a global standard for electric vehicle charging infrastructure — in order to pave the path toward wider adoption — according to a recent press release. In order to support its push for a global standard, Volvo Cars has opted to support the Charging Interface Initiative, according to the new press release. The Charging Interface Initiative is “a consortium of stakeholders that was founded to establish their Combined Charging System (CCS) as the standard for charging battery-powered vehicles.” “We see that a shift towards fully electric cars (EVs) is already underway, as battery technology improves, costs fall, and charging infrastructure is put in place,” stated Dr Mertens. “But while we are ready from a technology perspective, the charging infrastructure is not quite there yet. To really make range anxiety a thing of the past, a globally standardized charging system is sorely needed.” The press release provides more: The Combined Charging System, which will offer both regular and fast charging capabilities, makes electric car ownership increasingly practical and convenient — especially in urban environments which are ideal for electric vehicles. It combines single-phase with rapid three-phase charging, using alternating current at a maximum of 43 kilowatts (kW), as well as direct-current charging at a maximum of 200 kW and the future possibility of up to 350 kW — all in a single system. The Charging Interface Initiative is currently in the process of drawing up requirements for the evolution of charging-related standards and certification for use by car makers around the globe. “We are very happy to support and be involved in the setting of standards for electric vehicle charging systems. The lack of such a standard is one of the main obstacles for growing electric vehicles’ share of the market,” noted Dr Mertens. Lack of charging standardization is arguably a real issue, but it really remains to be seen what will emerge as the standard over the coming years and decades. Reprinted with permission. Get CleanTechnica’s 1st (completely free) electric car report → “Electric Cars: What Early Adopters & First Followers Want.” Come attend CleanTechnica’s 1st “Cleantech Revolution Tour” event → in Berlin, Germany, April 9–10. Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.
News Article | June 10, 2016
Find Out How 3D Printing Technology And 3D Printers Are Changing The World Of known planet-warming greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide is of particular concern because it is emitted through human activities. In 2014, for instance, carbon dioxide made up more than 80 percent of the United States' anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions largely from power plants, vehicles and industries. Researchers, however, appeared to have inched closer to finding a way to solve the problem of carbon emissions. Engineers and scientists who work at an Iceland power plant have shown that carbon dioxide emissions can be injected into the Earth and chemically changed into a rock. The process, which turned out radically faster than thought, may help address concerns plaguing other methods of so-called carbon capture and sequestration, or CCS, to capture waste carbon dioxide. One problem with capturing and storing carbon dioxide underground, for instance, is that this may possibly result in the emissions seeping back into the air or even exploding out. In a paper published in the journal Science, researchers described the success of a method through which carbon emissions are instead trapped to no longer pose an environmental threat. The study, which is part of the CarbFix Project, took place in Iceland's Hellisheidi power plant, the largest geothermal facility in the world. The plant generates electricity by pumping up volcanically-heated water to run turbines, but it also brings up volcanic gases that include carbon dioxide. Researchers dissolved carbon in water to prevent it from escaping and then injected it into wells that pass through basaltic lavas and formations 400 to 800 meters below the ground. The reaction between the basalt rocks and gas formed carbonate, a material similar to limestone, which can't leak back out into the environment. "Carbonate minerals do not leak out of the ground, thus our newly developed method results in permanent and environmentally friendly storage of CO2 emissions," said study author Juerg Matter from the University of Southampton. The method also appears efficient and fast. More than 95 percent of the carbon dioxide was turned into stone. The researchers' most optimistic estimate is that it would take between eight to 12 years before carbon could solidify into stone, but 250 tons of carbon were turned into carbonate within a period of just two years. "We find that over 95 percent of the CO2 injected into the CarbFix site in Iceland was mineralized to carbonate minerals in less than two years," the researchers wrote in their study. "Our results, therefore, demonstrate that the safe long-term storage of anthropogenic CO2 emissions through mineralization can be far faster than previously postulated." © 2016 Tech Times, All rights reserved. Do not reproduce without permission.
News Article | January 3, 2016
Editor’s Note: Neil Blanchard is a longtime reader and top commenter on EV Obsession and CleanTechnica. He’s very detail oriented — as in, he pays close attention to details and has what I’d call a scientific mind. He seems to know EVs like the back of his hand (though, I’m not sure if he would approve of such a phrase, as it’s not a great analogy). I was very happy yesterday when Neil dropped me a comment offering to repost a comparison article between the Nissan LEAF, Volkswagen e-Golf, and a couple of other EVs. I was especially happy not just because I admire Neil’s in-depth technical knowledge, but also because he and his wife own a Nissan LEAF and a Volkswagen e-Golf — owner reviews offer so much more insight. The detailed comparison between the Nissan LEAF vs VW e-Golf is quite interesting, and then Neil throws in thoughts on the BMW i3 REx (which his brother has) and Mitsubishi i-MiEV (which is mother and another family member have). And what makes these reviews extra interesting is that Neil’s whole family is tall (really — his mom’s ~6′ tall, and his brother and son are each 6’6″). His brother’s take on the i3’s space is particularly interesting, since I’m a little more than 6′ and was surprised by how spacious the driver’s seat of the i3 felt… but was also wondering if I was crazy and being too generous. But I think that’s enough of an intro. Here’s Neil’s full piece, reposted from his blog: We own both an e-Golf and a Leaf, and I have a little experience with the i3, as well, as my brother owns one. In a nutshell: the e-Golf is a better car than the Leaf in most respects, and the coasting and regen steps are the best. But the Leaf has better EV aspects; like the location of the charging port, and CHAdeMO is available, while CCS is not (where I am in Massachusetts, anyway). My family of four is tall, and we are much more comfortable in the e-Golf. The downside is it sits lower and the getting in and out is a bit more effort. The rear legroom in the e-Golf in particular is better, because the foot wells are deeper than the Leaf, which has some battery cells below the rear floor. The two features that the e-Golf have that is better than any EV on the market are the free wheel coasting, and the 4 levels of regen available by “shifting” — and the direct heating windshield defroster. The former is what every EV should have, in my opinion. The latter is a great concept, but as implemented in the e-Golf is a bit anemic for ice and freezing rain, and is only good for moisture in a cold rain. The idea is that direct heating is MUCH more efficient, but the e-Golf’s version needs more oomph. The Leaf has the best location for the charging port, and it has a light on the inside to see it in the dark. It has an optional lock to keep anyone from disconnecting you until it is charged. The e-Golf stays locked all the time, and only when you unlock the car, can you release it — so it is NOT easy to use on public EVSE’s unless you stay with it. The Leaf also has the three blue lights in the center of the dash at the base of the windshield so that the state of charging can be seen from a distance. Being able to use the CHAdeMO quick charging is great — we have not used it a lot, yet, but we can use it. The total lack of CCS stations is a major lack, for both the e-Golf and the i3. Driving the e-Golf is far better than the Leaf — handling and steering is great. The e-Golf chassis is more solid feeling and the fit and finish is better. The Leaf has stronger acceleration, even though the motor is slightly less powerful — it must have lower gearing. The Leaf brakes are strong, but the body rolls a bit more, and occasionally the stability control kicks in by dragging a rear wheel brake — this is a bit too heavy handed, in my opinion. The e-Golf has a tilt and telescope steering wheel, while the Leaf only tilts. The Leaf S we have came with 16″ Bridgestone Ecopia EP422 and these are excellent low rolling resistance tires, and so far I have been able to get lower energy consumption in the Leaf. My best average for a charge is just under 205Wh/mile (measuring the charge at the wall and using a corrected odometer reading). I “shift” into neutral and the Leaf simply flies along on the gentlest down slopes. The e-Golf has a better claimed Cd, and I tend to concur, but this advantage is undone by the unremarkable stock Continental tires. My best consumption in the e-Golf is 212Wh/mile. I hope to be able to try some low rolling resistance tires at some point, to see what the e-Golf is capable of. I have driven the e-Golf five times above 100 miles on one charge (best at 110 miles), and I have driven the Leaf three times farther than 100 miles (best 111 miles). My 90 day average (not every charge) on the e-Golf is 138.8MPGe, and for the Leaf it is 139.8MPGe. The stereo in the e-Golf is much better, though that is top-of-the-line vs base model. On the other hand, the Leaf has a USB input that works with any MP3 player, and the e-Golf requires a proprietary cable. (In theory it comes with two style iPod cables, but ours only came with the older 30 pin version.) The e-Golf has an SD slot so you can put your MP3’s on a big SD card, and use that; but it requires 400×400 JPG’s for the cover art. A couple of niggles with the e-Golf: the HVAC always resets to 72F; no matter where you left it. Grrrr … This is annoying. It only has the two front seats heated. When you unlock the car to release the charging cord, it resets the charger’s display that showed the kWh for the previous charge. Having to unlock the car to be able to pull the connector is quite annoying, and makes proper etiquette at public stations very difficult. The Leaf has all five seats heated, and the steering wheel is heated — my spouse is a HUGE fan of the heated steering wheel. Our Leaf S has a resistance heater, which sucks some serious wattage in the winter. Our worst total range was ~60 miles last winter; which was cold and very snowy. The e-Golf has adaptive creep. If you stop, and then release the brake — nothing happens. If you accelerate very lightly after coming to a stop, it continues forward after you release the accelerator pedal. I like this feature. The Leaf has “normal” creep, which is sometimes annoying. Both have a certain amount of hill hold, which is great — no drifting backward on hill starts. I have only driven my brother’s i3 REx briefly, and it’s strong regen on the accelerator is totally counter to how I have learned to ecodrive, over the last 7+ years. My brother is a bit over 6′-6″ and he has a 38″ inseam — and the i3 has more front legroom than any other vehicle he has ever driven. He has put a light-duty hitch on it, to carry a bicycle rack, and he carries lots of carpentry tools; though the largest (a portable wet saw) won’t fit in through the hatch, and has to be angled in through the passenger side doors. He has driven it ~89.5 miles on a single charge, and then he got ~40MPG on the REx, on a ~140 mile trip. We have ~9,200 miles on our 2015 Leaf S, and we have had it since October ’14. We have ~5,400 miles on our 2015 e-Golf and we have had it since February ’15. There are two i MiEV’s in our family, and I just got to drive my Mom’s for pretty good drive. It also has great legroom and headroom in the front (though not as cavernous as the i3) and the backseat is also pretty good. My son (6′-6″+) sat along side me in the front, and my Mom (who is ~6′ tall) sat in the backseat. It is a much more basic car than the Leaf and the e-Golf, and it has the smallest motor at 49kW. Still pretty peppy from a stop, and the steering is very nimble. With a great big hatch, and the rear seats folded flat, it is a workhorse. The dash is anything but modern, and it needs a dedicated range remaining gauge. Nothing fancy on the shifter, but it works like the Leaf — easy to “shift” into neutral and into B mode for more regen. The front tires were “low” at ~36PSI and ~38PSI, so I didn’t get to see how it really could coast. I pumped them up to 45PSI, and my Mom likes how it rolls. The Eco mode is only when you’re desperate — it knocks the power down to ~17kW (if I recall correctly) so it is a snail, and only useful in stop and go traffic when you need to stretch your range. The front seats are heated, but that’s it for winter amenities. The heater is resistance, and apparently gets a big help if you insulate it. The i MiEV has unusual tire sizes (narrow on the front, and normal on the back. There are 2 or 3 brands / models to choose from for all seasons, and 1 brand / model for winter tires, that are sold in the US, anyway. It is a basic electric car — seats four, and is easy to drive, and is very practical. If you are very tall, and you want an electric car, and cannot quite step up to the i3’s price, then give the i MiEV a look. Get CleanTechnica’s 1st (completely free) electric car report → “Electric Cars: What Early Adopters & First Followers Want.” Come attend CleanTechnica’s 1st “Cleantech Revolution Tour” event → in Berlin, Germany, April 9–10. Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.
News Article | January 19, 2016
Carbon capture and sequestration is expensive because it has three components, each with its own expensive challenges: capture, distribution, and sequestration. The mass of CO2 produced is 2-3 times the mass of coal or methane* burned and is more challenging per unit to ship than coal, so the cost of capture, distribution and sequestration is typically a multiple of the cost of doing the same with the coal or methane. How expensive is it? According to an organization which promotes carbon capture and sequestration, it will cost $120-$140 per ton of CO2. This will add from $168 to $196 to the cost of a MWh of coal generation. That’s 16.8 to 19.6 cents per KWh, which puts existing coal plants impossibly deep into unprofitable territory. Methane generation plants emit less CO2 per MWH, so would see 9.5 to about 11 cents per KWH added to their base cost, typically in the 5 to 7 cent range. Coal generation at 20 to 25 cents per KWH wholesale and methane generation at 15 to 18 cents per KWH wholesale wouldn’t be purchased by any utility. There are two general approaches to carbon capture, each of which have different challenges. Carbon capture at source of emissions diverts exhaust emissions from coal and gas generation plants through a series of catalysts, sorbents and other technologies. Coal plants in developed countries already have scrubbers for sulphur and filters for particulate matters. Retrofitting another step onto these two is another bolt-on. Coal and methane generation flues originally were very simply designed, with the heat of the emissions overcoming gravity so that the fumes flowed upward and out. With each addition of filtration and scrubbing, that ability to void emissions with waste heat is reduced. Now electricity is used to operate fans that push the emissions through the various filtration points. That costs money, or rather is consider as auxiliary power load on the generation station, and every point of auxiliary power is money that they aren’t making. Capturing CO2 typically uses sorbents, porous ceramic filters which capture the CO2 and let everything else through. They expect gases within a certain temperature range and set of components to operate effectively. Achieving these conditions may require cooling the emissions further or other processing. Both of these add costs. Sorbents are effectively ceramic nano filters. Air must be forced through them. This requires larger fans and more electricity, once again increasing costs. More CO2 is emitted than coal or gas is burned. CO2 is formed by a chemical reaction of the carbon in the fossil fuel with oxygen from the atmosphere. Oxygen has an atomic mass a hair under 16. Carbon has an atomic mass a hair over 12. Adding two heavier atoms to one lighter atom means that about 3.67 times the weight of carbon in the coal is emitted as CO2. Coal is about 51% carbon so the CO2 weights about 1.87 times the weight of coal. Burning methane (CH4) produces about 2.75 times the weight of CO2. What this means is that the mechanism for capturing and processing the CO2 is going to be potentially larger in scale than the mechanism for burning the coal and gas in the first place. The energy required to capture the very large amount of CO2 is non-trivial. Typically, sorbents are dropped into a hot liquid bath to release the captured CO2. Heating the water up requires energy, and heating water takes a lot of energy. There’s lots of waste heat in coal and gas plants because most of the energy from burning coal and gas is wasted as heat, so this isn’t as big a problem, but that heat has to be directed to the correct place in the right amounts. Once again, more duct work, more processing, more fans and more controls. More expense. CO2 when captured is a gas. It’s very diffuse. In order to store it, it must be compressed or liquified. Compressing and liquifying via cooling are both highly energy-consuming processes. More expense. CO2 must typically be stored onsite in preparation for shipping. Given that the weight of the CO2 is 1.87 time the weight of coal and that CO2 must be stored in compressed or liquified form, this requires very large pressure vessels or very large pressure and insulated vessels. By comparison, coal can be piled on the ground before use. This means that the effluent requires a much greater expense for storage and handing than the feedstock. Air carbon capture ignores the source of carbon emissions, and like a plant works off of the ambient CO2 in the atmosphere, right now just over 400 parts per million. Air carbon capture avoids some of the issues, but adds others. As pointed out, CO2 produced by burning coal or methane is 1.87 times the mass of coal, 2.75 times the mass of methane, is a gas or a liquid and must be kept compressed or very cold. It is much more like methane than it is like coal. Distribution of it is much more challenging than coal. While coal can be run in open hopper train cars, CO2 distributed by train requires pressure containers or pressure containers that are also maintained at a very low temperature. The total number of train cars required is much higher than the number of train cars which would deliver the coal, and this would be a substantially higher expense as a result. Coal is a cheap commodity and getting it from point A to point B is a large portion of its expense already, which is why many coal generation plants are built at coal mines. When CO2 is distributed by pipeline, the pipeline has to deal with 2.75 times the mass of CO2 as of gas entering the facility, effectively requiring close to three times the infrastructure to remove the waste as the feedstock. Regardless of whether a coal or gas plant is considered, all of that pipeline must be built. Very few CO2 pipelines exist in any country. Several do in the USA. They run mostly from geological formations which trapped CO2 over millions of years to enhanced oil recovery sites for the most part. More on that later. Extensive increases in capturing CO2 at source or from the air would require a very large network of new pipelines which would need to be constructed at great infrastructure expense. Both trains and pipelines are businesses. They make money by moving commodities and goods through their networks from producers to consumers. Moving CO2 will cost more money than moving the coal or gas does, effectively doubling or tripling distribution costs for every coal and gas plant. All of the above is why many places that require CO2 as an industrial feedstock use CO2 production facilities onsite instead of purchasing it. They burn gas or oil themselves to create the CO2 so that they don’t have to pay two to three times the cost to have it shipped to them. CO2 is a commodity which is worth $17-$50 a ton. Coal ranges from about $40 to $140, depending on several factors although it has been in decline for a while. Methane is in the $2-$5 per million BTU range with about 35,000 BTU per cubic meter. Suffice it to say, coal and gas are worth more than CO2 as commodities, and the ratio of the expense of distribution to value of the commodity is very different, especially when you consider two to three times the mass needing to be distributed. Coal and gas generation plants are placed close to population centers or coal beds, not close to places which require CO2 or where CO2 can be sequestered. Distribution is a very expensive component of the cost of CCS. How is CO2 sequestered or used? Especially if coal and methane continue to be burned for electricity, it is not enough to capture CO2, it must be stored securely for periods closer to how long the coal and methane were underground than to human lifetimes. The containment storage can’t leak significantly and must work passively. As CO2 is a gas in the range of temperatures in the atmosphere and below the surface of the earth, it by definition likes to leak. By far the biggest consumption point for CO2 is enhanced oil recovery fields. CO2 is acidic. Pumping it into played out oil fields makes the remaining sludge flow more smoothly and increases pressures underground. This makes the oil flow toward the other end of the field where it can be pumped out. In theory, the CO2 used in enhanced oil recovery remains underground, but in practice, it is being pumped into formations with dozens or even thousands of natural and man-created holes in the form of oil wells and natural faults. Enhanced oil recovery is not a sequestration technique, but a technique designed to get more carbon-based fuel out of the ground to be burned. Enhanced oil recovery cannot be seriously considered as a sequestration technique if the CO2 merely leaks to the surface again and more carbon is extracted from fossil fuel beds and released into the atmosphere through burning. Significant amounts of effort have to be performed to keep the CO2 from leaking, and there is little value to the EOR operators in doing so, so it typically doesn’t get done. Comparatively small amounts of CO2 are used by other industrial processes such as soft drinks, industrial scale greenhouses, some forms of cement, etc. There is no substantial market for CO2 which is not being met today, hence the reason why the commodity is cheap. About three-quarters of industrial CO2 is captured from underground concentrations of CO2, effectively like methane deposits. This CO2 is cheap compared to sequestering it after it is created, so captured CO2 has a higher cost base than mined CO2 and will not be competitive with it, especially without a carbon tax. As was already pointed out, the large majority of pipelines for CO2 are from mining points to major enhanced oil recovery sites, not from places it is created due to generation to industrial consumers. Enhanced oil recovery used only 48 million metric tons of CO2 in 2008 in the USA, which would be the CO2 emissions from only 13 coal generation plants. The other consumers of CO2 are much smaller. In 2013, there were over 500 coal generation plants and over 1,700 methane generation plants in the USA alone. Capturing CO2 from all forms of coal and methane generation would swamp what market exists for CO2, collapsing its value and making it even less economically viable. Other forms of sequestration have no fiscal value at all, but merely inject the CO2 into underground structures where it remains as a gas or bonds with other minerals underground to become calcium carbonate, a stable mineral. Injecting the CO2 requires large facilities, drilling, capping, pumping, monitoring etc. There is no revenue gained to offset this, so very little of this is done except as ‘pilots’, ‘test facilities’ and the like. While it has interesting challenges from an engineering perspective, it’s hard to imagine anyone with a good STEM background directly involved with it taking it seriously as a solution. What does this all add up to? Carbon capture and sequestration will never be economically viable compared to alternatives. The physical reality of the scale of CO2 production from generation requires a distribution infrastructure two to three times the scale of the existing fossil fuel distribution infrastructure and would result in electricity at four to five times the cost. Meanwhile, wind and solar generation are already directly cost competitive with and actually cheaper in many places than fossil fuel generation. This trend is clear. Fossil fuel generation without carbon capture and sequestration is trending to be or already is more expensive than renewable generation which emits no CO2 during operation and is getting cheaper. Fossil fuels are nature’s form of carbon sequestration, and nature took millions of years of free and slow processes to do so. It’s not a rational choice for humanity to dig up the sequestered carbon, recapture it and resequester it at great expense when there are alternatives. Leaving the carbon that geological processes sequestered where it is is the rational choice. * Natural gas is 89.5% to 92.5% methane which is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 in the short term. When burned, by far the dominant use for it, it emits CO2 in significant amounts. Extraction, storage and distribution all have leaks from small to disastrous in scale and when used as intended it creates CO2. Calling it methane more accurately labels it and allows lay people to understand the implications of its use. Like ‘clean coal’, ‘natural gas’ has PR connotations which are undeserved. Get CleanTechnica’s 1st (completely free) electric car report → “Electric Cars: What Early Adopters & First Followers Want.” Come attend CleanTechnica’s 1st “Cleantech Revolution Tour” event → in Berlin, Germany, April 9–10. Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.
Three years after smartwatches were launched to great fanfare, sales have disappointed as consumers have failed to get excited about the possibility of checking calls, texts and emails on the go without ever getting their phones out. Grumbles about bulky design and short battery life haven't helped either. Global smartwatch shipments soared eight-fold—from five million units in 2014 to 40.3 million in 2015, according to estimates by Gartner consultancy. But the pace of growth has since slowed, with 60.4 million watches to be shipped this year and 66.3 million in 2017. Industry players however argue there is still a lot to play for, and market leader Apple led the way on Wednesday when it launched its second-generation Apple Watch. Designed to be waterproof so you can take it swimming and with a built-in GPS for runners and cyclists, the device is most likely to appeal to sports lovers who want to track their workouts without carrying their phones. Apple also announced an edition of the watch that was developed with Nike, which chief operating officer Jeff Williams called "a watch designed with runners in mind". With its strong emphasis on using the Apple Watch Series 2 to support a healthy lifestyle, Apple has clearly chosen to focus on the booming fitness sector rather than target mainstream consumers, CCS Insight's George Jijiashvili said. "It's still not something that will make an average consumer run out and buy one," the wearables analyst told AFP. IHS insight analyst Ian Fogg said Apple had made some sensible upgrades but said the new watch was unlikely to make big waves. "For now, the increased fitness capabilities and Nike partnerships will keep the Apple Watch business moving, without creating a break-out new product category success for Apple as the original iPhone was nine years ago," he said. He argued that manufacturers needed to make several technological advancements in order to appeal to a broader market than just tech geeks. "I still think there's a tremendous opportunity for it, but the technology needs to become better, to enable multi-day battery life, to enable ubiquitous always-on screens, to enable the size of the devices to become smaller," he told AFP ahead of the Apple Watch launch. The problems are all related—the devices are chunky because the screen technology and battery needed to power it requires a watch of a certain size. Sony Mobile France director-general Jean-Raoul de Gelis agreed that the sector can only push into the mainstream if "real innovations" are made. "A smartwatch that has to be recharged every day quickly becomes irritating for the user," he said. "It's not a dying market, but it's a market that has to make more progress on technological areas," de Gelis told AFP on the sidelines of Berlin's IFA tech fair, which ended on Wednesday. One of the first entrants into the smartphone market, South Korean giant Samsung, said it was seeking to tackle some of those problems by teaming up with a designer from the traditional watch industry—Swiss, no less. Its new Gear S3, its third generation smartwatch, has a round face and offers battery life of three to four days. Nevertheless, it remains a big watch. Guillaume Berlemont, marketing director for mobile devices at Samsung France, said the company had worked with a designer from Swiss watchmaker Hublot, in order "to respond to the expectations of those who want a watch". Samsung does not see smartwatches becoming ersatz smartphones. Rather, it is seeking to replace conventional timepieces. "Traditional watchmakers are trying to introduce more and more electronics into their classic watches, and we are bringing out connected watches closer to the classic watch format," he said. "We believe that within two years, the market will just simply become the watch market," Berlemont told AFP. Jijiashvili agreed and said consumers would eventually fall in love with "smartwatches that look like traditional watches with some smartness imbedded". "That area will see mass market appeal," the analyst predicted.