As we sit here on the verge of an autmotive revolution, a significant amount of uncertainty remains.
Early adopters want electric cars here and now, and are willing to pay more to get them, but how large the market will eventually be, and how fast it will grow is unknown.
It is this uncertainty and lack of concensus that keeps automakers guessgin. It is a large part of why GM cannot project what ultimate Volt sales volumes will be or how many different EREV models they should build.
A new study follows others in painting a more pessimistic picture.
The Boston Consulting Group released a report earlier thus week which concludes without a battery breakthrough, lithium ion battery costs will limit widespread adoption of electric cars through the next decade.
The study claims that automakers are basing their sales projections on being able to acheive a cost of $250per kwh for lithium ion cells. They argue that although those prices have been achieved in the consumer electronics segment, the complexity of car batteries makes it untenable.
They report current electric car battery cost as being from $1000 – $1200 per kwh, and that in addition to complexity, longevity requirements and the needed technology and redundancy to obtain them will stricly limit ability to reduce cost.
“Given current technology options, we see substantial challenges to achieving this goal by 2020,” said Xavier Mosquet, Detroit-based leader of BCG’s global automotive practice and a coauthor of the study. “For years, people have been saying that one of the keys to reducing our dependency on fossil fuels is the electrification of the vehicle fleet. The reality is, electric-car batteries are both too expensive and too technologically limited for this to happen in the foreseeable future.”
BCG still expects about 26% of global auto sales to be electrics and hybrids by 2020, or 14 million cars. Of this group, they project, 1.5 million will be fully electric, 1.5 million will be range extenders, and 11 million will be a mix of hybrids. Seventy percent will use lithium-ion technology.
They warn, however, that by 2020 a 15kwh pack in an EREV would still effectively cost consumers $8000 to $10000 per vehicle, making those cars more expensive than their ICE counterparts, thereby limiting demand.
It is expected that the early EV market will be driven by early adopters and tax credits but by 2020, the total cost of ownership versus ICE cars will determine the market size. If there is a low cost battery breakthough, or if gas prices rise substantially the market could improve.
Source (BCG, pdf)
This entry was posted on Saturday, January 9th, 2010 at 9:03 am and is filed under Marketing, Research. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+14
Jan 9th, 2010 (9:05 am)More than a $1000 per kWh is not a very reasonable assumption when GM and others are getting them below $600 per kWh now, so what will it be in a year or two after production has ramped up?
I am not sure if this report is due to incompetence or complacency, but it surely does not reflect todays market, let alone what battery prices will look like in a couple years. And price is critical, because LiIon batteries, tho heavy and bulky, are able to do the job now. If price comes down below $300 per kWh, cars like the Volt will sell faster than the dealers can get them on the lot. And with yesterdays comments on pricing, it would seem that GM sees the price coming down quite nicely already. My guess is $37,450 MSRP.
+9
Jan 9th, 2010 (9:10 am)We’ll see. Consultants have been wrong before.
+10
Jan 9th, 2010 (9:12 am)What makes them think gas prices won’t rise substantially before 2020?
Jan 9th, 2010 (9:15 am)Nicely under $30,000.
+12
Jan 9th, 2010 (9:17 am)They keep saying the word “technology” over and over. Don’t they know what this means? Technology always gets cheaper over time. And it usually happens in thousands of small ways, not in one huge “breakthrough”.
What bothers me most is that the CEO of the company responsible for making all the prototype Volt packs is predicting $125/ total kwh in 10 years. The BCG consultants must know more than the people actually building the thing – not!
+3
Jan 9th, 2010 (9:21 am)Haven’t we been down this road before?
I can see $700 per KWH in a niche market (tens of thousands of units) but, not for millions of units delivered over the next decade.
+5
Jan 9th, 2010 (9:25 am)IMHO — In the mind of the general public the Volt is a Hybrid. We know better, but if you look at it as a Hybrid then you can look at Hybrid sales and they are on the up and up. Ford is kicking A** and Toyota has over 1 Mill on the Road. The Volt will do just fine. Now if you look at pure Bev’s then this article might not be all that wrong.
+2
Jan 9th, 2010 (9:29 am)As has already been pointed out, some of the “facts” in the report are already incorrect, so I think the source of the report and it’s authors needs the typical “look see”. This will be a nice report to look back on in a few years to see how “accurate” it’s predictions were.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+4
Jan 9th, 2010 (9:32 am)For what it’s worth,
I’ve seen Lithium based batteries in the RC model market that
sold for $120 per pack just two or three years ago can
now be obtained for $20 or less per pack with the
same or better specs…
I have to agree with KUD…
Pure BEVs have a real challenge.
Especially for those of us in the South West.
Or Montana, or N Dakota, or …………
+3
Jan 9th, 2010 (9:32 am)I’m actually waiting for a cheaper, 20 mile range Volt. Here is my logic:
I like the idea of having options for the battery pack range for the Volt, especially if you can add a battery pack module to the 20 mile battery pack, if your needs change. The 20 mile pack is the best option for me. Look at the math for a Volt driven 10,000 miles per year:
24 miles R/T to work
For work
Daily, 20 miles in electric, and last 4 miles in hybrid.
Annually, 5,000 miles electric and 1,000 hybrid @ 50 mpg
Annual gas to work, 1,000/50= 20 gal/yr. At $4/gal that’s only $80 per year to get to work.
Work will be 6,000 miles and I assume 4,000 miles on the week ends/vacation or about 52 x 2, or 104 days per year. The first 20 miles will be electric so, 102x 20 =2,040 miles electric and 1,960 on gas @ 50 mpg.
1,960/50= 40 gal/yr or about $160 per year for weekend gas.
Total annual gas cost for 60 gallons would be $240 for this case with the 20 mile Volt.
(Our existing car needs about 600 gallons per year.)
The 40 mile Volt could go the year in all electric mode in this example. (This would be cool!)
Lets, assume the battery packs cost $5,000 per 20 miles of range.
Is it worth it to add $5,000 more for the 40 mile range Volt, to save $240 per year?
I think I would pick the 20 mile electric range Volt, because I’ve reduced my gas needs by 90% and I may be able to add a better, cheaper battery in the future.
Jan 9th, 2010 (9:33 am)I DO believe that overall progress will take time, given the sheer magnitude of the vehicle population out there. I also believe that there will be a substantial waiting list door at *least* 2 years for every Volt coming off the production line. JM(accurate)O.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 9th, 2010 (9:35 am)It’s not all about the money.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+5
Jan 9th, 2010 (9:42 am)GM has said that much of the initial Volt cost is the it had to design many new components beyond the battery cells. Even the battery pack has new components and design that will drop in price as production goes up, separate from the core battery cells. So even if the battery cells are not able to drop over next 10 years, the rest of the supporting components will go down, just like any other product. This whole research from BCG is surprising based on false assumptions.
-43
Jan 9th, 2010 (9:49 am)(click to show comment)
+3
Jan 9th, 2010 (9:49 am)Looks like BCG is going to have to do another study to update its study. If someone paid for that (which I doubt), they’ll likely either have to pay for another one, or, just as easy, review all the incremental advances for themselves right here.
Jan 9th, 2010 (9:54 am)BCG is probably funded by Chevron!
+7
Jan 9th, 2010 (9:56 am)I became to untrust BCG studies some years ago when they audited my workplace to propose a new organization.
Their report was quite imprecise and the consultants appeared not to know correctly the domain they investigated.
Regards,
JC NPNS
+2
Jan 9th, 2010 (10:00 am)Sure Tag, I agree, thanks
JC NPNS
+1
Jan 9th, 2010 (10:13 am)Thanks for the first-hand info on the “source”!
Stay warm.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+3
Jan 9th, 2010 (10:40 am)I would love to see a consultant report like this that included honest error bars. For example, they predict a 19-year payback for an EREV-40 in 2020 based on $100/barrel oil and $400/kWh battery packs. They are predicting the price of commodities 10 years out and don’t even give a range of possible payback time.
-19
Jan 9th, 2010 (10:43 am)(click to show comment)
+12
Jan 9th, 2010 (10:48 am)No one is going to “Kill the Electric Car.”
Electric Cars are the future and the future has begun.
+8
Jan 9th, 2010 (10:49 am)I read the report yesterday. First, it’s more or less impossible to predict future behavior even a few years out. Either on the plus or the minus side. The vast majority of people need the car in front of them before they have an opinion. Even with all the hype surrounding the Volt, the vast majority of people have no real idea what it is. A new Camaro? They get that (at least the older ones). A new Volt? An electric car? What’s up with that? In the absence of actual consumer data, the BGC has to project incomplete historical data forward onto a trend line. Like the government study discussed a few weeks ago, this doesn’t work very well for significantly different products. Try and find a BCG report — or any consulting report for that matter — from 2001 saying the iPod would kill CDs. Good luck with that.
The second thing in the report which was interesting was that 9% of the respondents said they’d buy an electric car regardless of price. 9%? That was such a large number I was blown away. The BCG report categorized this as a “niche” market, but a million cars a year (even at currently depressed levels) is not a small number. That this large a market segment says that price is irrelevant is rather astonishing. I dunno, do you think that if the Volt captured a third of this market, and GM sold 300,000 Volts a year, five times the number of Camaros and more than capacity, that this wouldn’t be considered a success?
Finally on price it’s hard to reconcile the price the reports with what LG Chem and GM are saying. We’ve done the calculations based on different numbers and it’s clear that the cells cost about $500-$600 per kWh and that the final pack costs about $12K. GM says it can get the cost down by 50% in Gen II. In this situation, while I’m sure everyone has their own reasons for reaching their conclusions, the best approach would be to go with those who are actually doing as opposed to those who are studying. With Gen II, even at current gas prices, you can justify the premium based on the the savings over the life of the car, and Gen II will bring the break even point down to more like five or six years. Now the report says that consumers will only look at a three year period, not a five or six year period, but education or government subsidies, which the report assumed would not be present, could of course change that calculus.
Finally, the report did not consider that the EV drive train will be superior. If it is — and I think it will be without question — and the EV drive is considered superior and and more luxurious — then the EV premium, which the report is only considering will be based only on gas savings, will be justified in part by the physical properties of the drive train. So if part of the premium for an EV is justified by the drive train, this will reduce the “gas saving” premium needed to justify the purchase. IOW Frank Weber was on to something and GM should not lose opportunities to make the point about how smooth and quick the Volt is. (Interestingly enough, the LA Times review of the Volt was quite strong on the point that the drive train of the Volt was in fact a step up from what you could get on a comparable ICE vehicle).
+18
Jan 9th, 2010 (10:52 am)The Volt’s battery pack currently costs $8000, and should come down to $2000 by 2020.
First, it’s important to understand the players:
- LG Chem (big company in South Korea) is making the battery cells.
- CPI (small subsidiary of LG Chem) assembled the cells into Volt prototype packs.
- GM is assembling the cells into production packs, with guidance from CPI.
So CPI built all the Volt battery packs up to this year. In this interview with the CEO of CPI:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/02/profile-li-ion.html
he says:
“• First, … the ratio of end-of-life to beginning-of-life is 75%.
• Second, … application is sized for a 70% depth of discharge…
• Third, … more stringent requirements on the validation of the individual cells.
• Fourth, a vehicle pack battery pack has non-cell costs such as a monitoring system.
All four of these items together justify … approximately $1000/available kWh…”
Decoding this statement requires some knowledge of “engineering speak”.
The first 2 bullets together say that only 50% of the battery is available for use (75% of 70% is very close to 50%). This lines up exactly with the Volt’s battery design, which has 50% of total capacity available for use.
The fourth bullet makes it clear he’s talking about the cost of the battery pack, not just the cells.
Then he gives a figure of $1000/available kWh. Taken together with the first 2 bullets, this makes it clear that he is not talking about total battery capacity here, but only the part that is available for use.
Since the Volt’s battery pack has 8kWh available for use,
we know the Volt’s pack currently costs around $8000,
and Bob Lutz more or less confirms this cost here:
http://gm-volt.com/2009/08/04/why-the-volt-will-cost-40000/
Since other EV manufacturers tend to use much more than 50% of total battery capacity, a better way to compare the Volt’s current battery cost is $500/kWh total capacity ($8000 for 16kWh total capacity).
Now take a look at what the CEO of CPI says about the future:
“From a historical perspective over the past 17-18 years the cost has come down by a factor of 15x. In the next 5-10 years we should be able to come down by an incremental 2-4x and we will have to do that to accelerate the penetration of the technology.”
So by 2020, we should be looking at costs of around $125/kWh total capacity.
+3
Jan 9th, 2010 (10:53 am)Well guys and gals, I think that we cannot be so content as to think we can just coast to the finish line. Some of this negative press is founded on opinion that may be couched in facts or pseudo facts (this appears to be the case), but I’d be surprized if one or two actual bad news items does not surface in the next year and a half. But I’m thinking that between now and July 4 the vast bulk of the news is going to be very upbeat for the Volt (and I hope for most EV’s). The Tesla Roadster was due to arrive in Detroit yesterday (have not seen confirmation, yet). The Nissan Leaf is to arrive on Monday or Tuesday. There will be lots of good news on the EV front. I strongly suspect that even without R&D breakthroughs that GM is going to succeed in getting battery cost to an acceptable level. With a move to nanoparticle lithium I think we are talking major cost improvements and performance also.
+3
Jan 9th, 2010 (11:02 am)Incorrect. The Volt’s pack currently costs $8000. See my previous post for details and references.
+4
Jan 9th, 2010 (11:02 am)#24 Dave G, Thanks. Sorry that I can only give +1.
+1
Jan 9th, 2010 (11:05 am)Oh, one last thought. If as the nanoparticle people suggest comes true, then the weight of a given battery will be 1/10. That speaks to a tremendous performance boost (driving).
+3
Jan 9th, 2010 (11:09 am)Also, I suggest that the “cost” of the pack has already come down by about 40%. If GM was figuring that as part of warrantee costs that they had to allow for one replacement battery pack per car and they are now confident in the durability of the packs then that is a “cost reduction”. Next step in costs is to see how efficient the Brownstown plant will be after production ramps up. BTW I do have a GM contact for plant tours (none before May).
+2
Jan 9th, 2010 (11:34 am)So I’m going to make a more positive case for this report than most of the posters before me have done. It shows us 2 important positive points.
First, even with a high battery cost, it expects 1.5% of sales to be EREV by 2020. That would be something like 200,000 cars/year, a larger number than we have ever heard gm talk about, and far more than the 10,000 projected for year one. That is, this report is projecting strongly growing EREV sales.
Second, the report makes clear what it is using as the reference price of batteries, about $1100 per kwh and that it is this price that is holding down sales We all expect battery prices to be significantly lower, so if we are right we can use the report as a reference point. Based on the report itself we would project sales to be maybe ten times as much, or 15% of sales. That is a huge number of EREVs in just a few years. Let us hope that it proves to be so.
+1
Jan 9th, 2010 (11:41 am)While I don’t expect battery prices to come down as quickly as prices come down in the consumer electronics segment, the prices will come down through volume production.
That said, my estimation for the 2020 battery pack for a car like the Volt (small sedan) is 11kWh, 8 usable, 50kg, $3,500.
Plus when the economy gets out of this huge hole, gas prices will go back up to over $3.50/gal and the Volt starts to look even better.
+1
Jan 9th, 2010 (11:47 am)This topic just confirms to me that the luxury segment of the overall automobile market is the central target to go after. The company who is first to succeed there will be rewarded with profits and a big boost in image which will trickle out to their other product offerings.
There’s nothing there right now that is beyond incrementally better in MPG than standard ICE powered cars. Meh……
A highly styled, highly economical product such as the Converj would fly out of the showrooms, especially if it was offered in both 4 door and 2 door versions, and maybe even a crossover. Image, image, image is important in this class of cars, and to be perceived as being green is verrry cool to be right now, and will be even cooler as time marches on.
+2
Jan 9th, 2010 (12:07 pm)Right. GM is in for a big surprise here. Let’s hope they can keep up.
Let’s also hope some other major car makers announce EREV production dates. Competition is good for everyone, even GM.
+2
Jan 9th, 2010 (12:10 pm)Can someone please enlighten the whole world where they are getting the quote of $1000/kwr?
” Denise Grey and Jon Laukner from GM this week they both hinted that the Volt battery was actually in the $500-600 / kWh range”.
If we talk of just the battery, Thundersky LIFEPO4 is $378/kwhr.
John M
Jan 9th, 2010 (12:18 pm)#17
Scott Adams got it right in his first book, “The Dilbert Principle.” I can’t quote him exactly from memory, but the gist of it was that “consultant” is a contraction of two words/phrases, “con-man” and “insult”.
I’ve been through the exact same experience.
+4
Jan 9th, 2010 (12:25 pm)#31
Right. $3.50 +, IMHO. And whoever isn’t ready for it will cease to exist this time.
+1
Jan 9th, 2010 (12:35 pm)Has anyone noticed the increasing political static around the EPA’s intentions to tighten ozone air pollution standards? This is a critical public health issue, particularly here in CA. Between that, global warming, and all of the profoundly important economic and geopolitical reasons to lessen oil consumption explained at length by the highly informed bloggers here, I see a public policy perfect storm of support for PHEVs and BEVs on the horizon.
Between strategic local, state, and federal incentives, and inevitably rising oil/gasoline prices, I believe that BCG’s projections will something we look back upon and laugh in the near future. That is, if we remember them at all.
Jan 9th, 2010 (12:36 pm)#27
Yeah, me too. +1
Jan 9th, 2010 (12:44 pm)#12
Amen brother, preach on. +1
Actually, it is all about the money. It’s just a question of who pays for all of the currently “externalized costs.”
BTW, my finger is getting sore from clicking on all these “+1s” this morning. You guys are on a roll. And another +1 for your comment about “GM’s seed corn” yesterday. In my dreams, but it really did give me a bit of hope.
+1
Jan 9th, 2010 (12:46 pm)This report neglects the about-to-explode electric and hybrid electric bicycle, scooter and motorcycle segment. If batteries do remain expensive, then people will buy the 2 and 3 wheel versions to get by, just as I have with my gasoline scooter.
Just got done riding around town here in Melbourne, Florida. It’s 36 degrees Fahrenheit and raining. It’s no joy, but with the right gear, it’s no problem.
+1
Jan 9th, 2010 (12:54 pm)I fly RC at the local field. My son has gone through several RC dune buggy and trucks. Yes, the initial lithium batteries were expensive. They were also much lighter than commonly used batteries. Aircraft are now flying over twice as fast AND over 3 times as long. The lighter weight offers higher speed and improved climb rate.
I disagree with the article from the Boston Group. People tend to handicap a forward time line in a motionless vacuum. True, this is a good way to identify the parts of an issue. But a bad way of making predictions. Especially when it comes to an emotional purchase such as a car.
Here’s an easy example: You walk into a CVS drug store to buy school supplies. There is a 6 pack of standard yellow #2 pencils for $1. You pick these up, then notice a fireworks print #2 pencil pack of 4 for $1. You buy the custom 4 pack. Why does the manufacturer even offer firework print pencils when it’s cheap and easy to stick with the old style yellow? Why would a buyer settle for 4 when you could of had six? It’s because we are no longer living in the 80′s.
Just as Camille Ricketts of San Francisco did her piece on why the electric car will flop. BCG can guess that people won’t buy them as well. Things may never change in Boston. You can bet every pencil at the offices of BCG is a standard #2 yellow. Circa 1963 1000 pack?
=D~
+2
Jan 9th, 2010 (12:55 pm)Good points. There’s also a lot of political uncertainty here. If the pols finally decide to tax gasoline instead of productive activity then these models would change in a hurry. Most carbon tax proposals so far are complex gimmicks to increase taxes. If we slapped a $2 per gallon tax on gas and gave people a refundable tax credit on their income tax for it, most people would really try to minimize their use of gas rather than deal with the IRS.
+3
Jan 9th, 2010 (1:04 pm)I am a satellite engineer and really the factor will be competition.
I am really excited to see A123 AONE gear up their production facilities currently so they can maybe sell to GM or even win the next battery contract with GM and ship directly to GM.
This would allow GM to have two maybe three sources of battries. The cost is so high right now because LG might be the only viable solution. However when more vendors become available then cost cutting will start.
IF GM is smart they need to keep a partnership going with A123 and help them develop their technology.
Shipping all those cells from over seas has got to add to the cost as well and use oil !!
Eventually keeping all the production in house will save. I think the stock AONE will be a good buy for the long term.
In fact I suspect a lot of the production figures are limited by how many batteries LG can ship. So why not form more contracts NOW to get various vendors. Start testing A123 and other batteries and using them in the Volt. I am sure GM is doing this now but just some ideas!
+2
Jan 9th, 2010 (1:09 pm)Here we go again. This report is making its rounds in various blogs. Surprised to see it reported here without any critical commentary.
I’d also not take any “expert report” that ignores Peak Oil when talking about 2020 seriously.
The below study by the “Electrification coalition” that includes A123 says the current average battery price is $600 / kwh. This is also the report that sets the target battery price as $250/kwh that the Boston study uses. So the Boston group that bases the study on current price of $1000 study is useless. Afterall this group doesn’t even know the current price – what chance do they have of correctly predicting prices 10 years into the future ?!
http://www.electrificationcoalition.org/535928473533888957466293/EC-Roadmap-screen.pdf
We know Nissan is gets a cost of less than $500 even (hinted at in the above report as well). BTW, check out this linked doc – a lot of information about PHEV/EV charging/battery etc. They say a lot of neighbouhood transformers would need upgrades when people start charging their cars.
Jan 9th, 2010 (1:16 pm)You’re calculations are off for two reasons. One is you’re too optimistic on the cost of the cells. Two is that the cost of the cells don’t equate to the cost of the pack.
Let’s start with your optimistic pricing for the the cells. Yes LG Chem has hinted (not said but hinted) that the cost for the cells used in the Volt is $500/kWh. No problem as far as that goes. However, the range is usually given as being in the $500/kWh to $600/kWh range, these numbers coming from journalists who have had off the record discussions with GM employees. This is far below what formal study groups have found, but as I mentioned, it makes sense to go with the estimates of the people who are doing as opposed to those who are studying. However, even if you do this, $500/kWh is on the low side of the range, so realistically using $550/kWh would be a better guess since that incorporates more available information rather than one interpretation of one interview.
Second, and most importantly, the cost of the cells don’t comprise the cost of the pack, they’re merely a component of that cost. To arrive at the pack cost you must also add the cost of the electronics which are needed to monitor the cells and the housing and of course the liquid heating and cooling system for the cells, all of which are not included in the cell cost.
From GM we know what percentage of the cost of the total pack are attributable to the cells and what percentage is attributable to these other components. Applying these percentages, if you assume the cells cost $500/kWh, then the cost of the pack comes out to be $11.2 or $11.4. I can’t remember offhand which it is. But it’s significantly more than $8K, which seems a very misleading number if used as you’re using it.
+1
Jan 9th, 2010 (1:18 pm)http://www.metromodemedia.com/innovationnews/a123systemsbatteryplant0098.aspx
Here you go.
Not sure how long or how many units their contract is for with LG but its good news to see Battery companies starting to build plants here in the USA.
+3
Jan 9th, 2010 (1:29 pm)This is one of those “duh” studies like when they study that grass is green. Of course the high price will limit EV adoption. When the price falls in line with ICE cars adoption will take off. Not rocket science.
+3
Jan 9th, 2010 (1:38 pm)When are these researchers going to realize that adoption has nothing to do with technology advancements.
All we need is the will to do it. Look at Israel, Denmark and now Australia. They decided they are going to help Better Place come in and set up the infrastructure. The governments will then offer incentives that would be too hard to refuse (an EV in Denmark will cost about half what a petrol car will cost).
Everything depends on what happens with petroleum and the rate of our global economic recovery. If we don’t recover, we will never go past that 86 mbd production we hit in July 2008 and can sit in limbo until we slowly drift lower and lower.
If the global economy ignites with all of the debt-financed stimulus than we will hit that 86 mbd mark in about a year or two. Once we get another scare we might just wake up and say, “Darn, we really did hit Peak Oil.”
When that realization hits, we might find it hard just to secure the energy resources needed to build those EVs and maintain our personal vehicle infrastructure.
We are in for some rough times ahead and only a miracle breakthrough is going to help reduce the coming pain.
Jan 9th, 2010 (1:50 pm)Thanks, Noel. I agree that the comments today have been *especially* cogent and positive. Thanks also for noticing the seed corn analogy – I thought that it had gone unread or unnoticed. I do think that it’s an apt metaphor – I just hope that GM sees it that way too!
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+4
Jan 9th, 2010 (1:58 pm)The figures are not mine. They come from the CEO of CPI.
And if you read my post, you’ll see he is talking about pack prices, not cell prices.
And Bob Lutz basically verifies the pack costs $8000.
Please read post #24 fully, and you will see what I’m talking about.
Jan 9th, 2010 (2:02 pm)It seems to me that the commentary has clearly been critical of the study.
Thanks for the link.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+3
Jan 9th, 2010 (2:04 pm)I agree we are nearing Peak Oil, if we haven’t hit it already.
By the way, where does that 86 million barrels per day figure come from?
-4
Jan 9th, 2010 (2:05 pm)I wonder if this kind of attitude about battery limitations, if perceived by the automakers, will inspire continuation of fuel cell developments. Battery vs. fuel cell is as good of competition as either vs. petrol, and we would love to see both renewables more widely adopted.
I personally see the hydrogen infrastructure like that of cell phones 20 years ago. It’s not that people didn’t like the idea of cell phones, but there were so few areas where you could get a signal that it was simply impractical. And for so long, you had to leave the thing in your car because it was so cumbersome and needed such a big battery. Classic chicken and egg. But some visionary companies put a few chickens out there, a few more eggs here and there, and sure enough now it’s completely ubiquitous. I like where Honda is going with the FCX Clarity, and of course where GM is going with Volt. But it feels like batteries have already won, and clearly they haven’t. If we had 25% of light vehicles electrified in ten years, perhaps another 10% would roll in on Hydrogen. And then more fill stations would be around, and more would get made, etc. And you KNOW that the technology would get more and more efficient and affordable as time passes. As it will with batteries!
+4
Jan 9th, 2010 (2:11 pm)EREV technology costs should decrease once in mass production.
GM has successfully achieved the “heavy lifting” goal thru their creation of the revolutionary Voltec automotive platform. The platform appears to lend itself favorably to the integration of several alternative energy storage technologies (ultra capacitors & fuel cells, among others) and isn’t limited only to the use of lithium batteries even though lithium’s used in the first generation Volts.
The Voltec platform appears something like the first consumer PC (and MAC) platforms, expensive initially but with the capability of great decreases in cost and great benefits for consumers.
Go Volt!
+2
Jan 9th, 2010 (2:15 pm)Certainly cost is a driving factor for widespread adoption of EVs. The direct costs are the vehicle cost, maintenance and cost of the electricity consumed.
I think that BCG is wrong on on all three costs because their analysis is “static”.
Here’s my reasoning:
1. Historically, manufacturing costs decline over time as improvements in methods and materials are realized. It is probable that improvements in battery chemistry will result in both lower manufacturing cost and lower operating cost (lighter battery packs).
2. Maintenance costs for an EV are likely to also be significantly lower because the reliability of electric motors and electronics far exceeds ICE technology. Consumers also put a high value on vehicle reliability and are willing to pay for it within reason.
3. Operating cost for electricity, even at current prices, is much lower than gasoline. For many consumers such as in California, electricity cost could be mitigated by off-hour charging.
For these reasons, I believe BCG is just reaching a short-sighted conclusion that does not take into account the dynamics of a new market.
-3
Jan 9th, 2010 (2:19 pm)See now, there’s what we -really- need… smaller atoms.
+2
Jan 9th, 2010 (2:20 pm)#48
“All we need is the will to do it.” I completely agree. +1.
Jan 9th, 2010 (2:23 pm)#49
Yeah, I really smiled when I saw it. Well said. I would have said something yesterday, but I was just so frustrated with the problems we were having with our computers that I couldn’t get to it. It all seems OK today, so maybe we’re past the worst. Best regards.
Jan 9th, 2010 (2:28 pm)#53
There is an extensive article in this week’s Autoweek about a very similar Mercedes Benz project. I’m strictly from Missouri regarding fuel cells but hey, whatever works. In the immortal words of the great Chick Hearn, “It’ll count if it goes!”
Jan 9th, 2010 (2:29 pm)hey all u guys. what about EESTOR company prototype. they havent showed any of them and whats goanna be the future of them. please ask lyle to contact eestor or zenn motors regarding this
Jan 9th, 2010 (2:29 pm)#55
I agree. +1
+5
Jan 9th, 2010 (2:31 pm)Typical linear thinking applied to an exponentially changing situation. Anyone who thinks the automotive market conditions in 2020 will be remotely comparable to today is on some really strong drugs.
Things are moving too quickly for consultants to excuse this kind of shortsightedness any longer. The 21st century is a time of exponentially accelerating acceleration (double exponential growth) in technological development. This is taking place against the backdrop of the significant dwindling of oil resources and lack of new discoveries.
I wonder if the likely $200-$300/barrel price of oil in 2020 plus a substantial carbon tax would significantly change the outcome of the study? That’s far, far, far, more probable than the idea that batteries/ultracaps won’t get to $250/KWh. If I was a betting man, I’d bet we reach that price point in less than five years. By 2020, electric cars with 1000-mile range and quick charging should be commonplace. That type of storage capacity should also extend the electrification process well into trucking, rail, and heavy equipment. Boats and RVs will also electrify.
People are forgetting that a whole industry (renewable energy) is going to rely on development of robust smart-grid-capable energy storage technology. Grid-connected electric cars will help smooth peak power demand. Billions are being poured into this kind of research right now. Google just applied to be a power producer. And they’re also invested in electric cars. The convergence is coming. The ’10s is the decade battery technology moves front and center of global energy policy.
This study completely misses that boat.
Jan 9th, 2010 (2:33 pm)#56
See also #60. Imagine what happens when we combine this with EESTOR. I think that all the meters in the country will spin backwards or something.
Jan 9th, 2010 (2:44 pm)#62
God send that it shall be true. +1
+1
Jan 9th, 2010 (2:47 pm)Uhhh – No.
First, if that’s the direction we are going toward, it will take much longer than that. People always under-estimate changes to the infrastructure.
Second, there are much easier options. Specifically, the combination of EREVs and ethanol from non-food sources gives us a zero net carbon solution, and that’s using our existing infrastructure of 110v home electrical outlets and liquid fuel filling stations.
Cellulosic ethanol is real today. They’re already scaling it up:
http://www.coskata.com/facilities/?source=568A3D3C-AACF-4D95-B297-7264DD2C17B5
The process can replace up to 35% of our current gasoline consumption, all without any affect on food supply. EREVs replace 80% of gas usage. Add them up, 80% + 35% = 115%, more than enough to completely replace gasoline using our current infrastructure. What’s not to like?
+1
Jan 9th, 2010 (2:54 pm)Or maybe the EESTOR demo is already there and it’s just so small that we all missed it!
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 9th, 2010 (2:58 pm)The gen 1.5 Volt will be the platform to build the Orlando and the Converj upon. Most of the development costs will have been absorbed by the gen 1 and 1.5 Volt. This is where the big EV profit starts. And where even more consumer connectivity is realized.
To address the idea that people don’t want a vehicle which is both efficient AND high powered. Which happens to be solid feeling, safe, and very quiet as well. Where are most charging outlets? In parking structures and in garages. There is a good chance most EV will retain their new appearance longer than the common 20K-25k import sitting at the curbside. Who will want a new car boasting just 28 mpg in 2017? Or V8 cars like the Audi and BMW that may achieve 19 mpg? Let’s get on with it.
=D~
Jan 9th, 2010 (3:00 pm)Gm has a 5th generation Hydrogen Fuel ready to go.
Jan 9th, 2010 (3:02 pm)Sat Jan 9, 7:15 am ET
BEIJING – A U.S. solar power company said Saturday it will help build a series of solar thermal power plants in China, as the world’s biggest emitter of greenhouse gases tries to decrease its heavy reliance on coal, imported gas and oil.
California-based eSolar Inc. will provide Shandong Penglai Electric Power Equipment Manufacturing Co. with the technology and information to build the concentrated solar thermal power farms with a capacity totaling 2,000 megawatts.
The $5 billion investment would be the largest such project in China, though the companies didn’t say who would be investing how much.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100109/ap_on_bi_ge/as_china_solar_power
=D~
+1
Jan 9th, 2010 (3:05 pm)I agree with the premise that the coskata process plus EREV’s makes a perfect marriage (and love the fact that GM is invested in Coskata). *However*, the huge, and time-consuming part of the solution is the retirement of the current US vehicle fleet. That alone will take decades (IMHO). This is NOT to say that we shouldn’t get started ASAP, just that it’ll take time to undo a century of petroleum based transport.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+1
Jan 9th, 2010 (3:14 pm)Buying a Volt will be a unifying force in America.
Right wing ‘buy-american’ Conservative and Left wing Environmentalist will each be clamoring for this car. Only the colors they choose will differentiate them!!!
Jan 9th, 2010 (3:21 pm)The wide range of beliefs held by the people here is a great example of how correct you are. The Volt may not remedy ideological divides, but it will surely be a point of agreement among very diverse groups.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+1
Jan 9th, 2010 (3:40 pm)The adoption of EV will be faster in Europe , Japan , Korea & china etc as folks are adaptive, concerned about environment and drive smaller cars ..An EV with 2 passengers will be idea for office commute ..For long range travel holidays rent or use the 2nd hybrid car ..but folks in US are spoiled & demand this & that ..yes it will be harder & take longer time ..the world will move on to small EV for daily commute …US wil lag in EV adoption ..
It is amazing that folks in US paid $5+ for a gallon in 2008 but if asked to fork out few cents for higher gas taxes to encourage devoplemnt of EV & non-oil technologies they will cry ..what a shame ..
Jan 9th, 2010 (3:41 pm)#65
So much the better. +1. As you know by now, I’m a strong EREV supporter. As to cellulosic ethanol, I about as from Missouri as I am with hydrogen. So same answer as at #59. “It’ll count if it goes!”
+1
Jan 9th, 2010 (3:44 pm)#71
I’m both, so what color do I get? Do you think that they will offer a two tone red and blue paint scheme?
+2
Jan 9th, 2010 (3:50 pm)Those irrepressibly optimistic analysts at Cambridge Energy Research Associates, across the Charles River from Boston Consulting Group.
Does that confident smile look forced ?
http://www.cera.com/aspx/cda/public1/about/about.aspx
+1
Jan 9th, 2010 (3:59 pm)I see no reason to assume that thedse folks have a better crystal ball than those in the field, such as A123 Systems folks or AG people, none of whom sounded this pessimistic about costs last time I heard from them. Also confusing the issue is fast rechatrging. From the example of slipper surface li ion technology that A123 Systems is now developing (and supposedly commercializing within 2 years), advantage will be substantial, allowing battery only, thus tossing out all that EREV cost in the process. Did this study actually present arguments that take into acount things like this, or simply dismiss them all and make their estimate assuming that li ion technology progresses not an inch forward before 2010. I also wonder who paid for this study and why it was undertaken.
Jan 9th, 2010 (4:11 pm)Just as a point of reference, an aftermarket battery system for the Prius can be bought for ~$1100/kWh installed today at very small volumes.
http://www.3prongpower.com/products.html
Jan 9th, 2010 (4:18 pm)#77
Hey kent, nice to see your name here. Best regards and a happy and successful 2010. BTW, I agree with your comment. +!
Jan 9th, 2010 (4:22 pm)BTW, I finally took the advice of so many of you and got one of my lads to help me install Firefox. It sure is nice to have the edit function and the comment numbers back. Although I can still sneak a few typos past the edit function. Like spelling Noel Nole, LOL. Have a nice weekend gang. Maybe Dr. Dennis will be able to come up with some more good news for Monday.
Jan 9th, 2010 (5:22 pm)Good news Noel. I like Firefox but keep Explorer for viewing financial charts. Some of the charts freeze with Mozilla. Not sure why.
BTW: Speaking of financial charting. Proceed with caution ahead. When Jim Cramer yells, “Hey everyone…withdraw your money from bonds and get back in NOW!”. As he did this week. This is cause for concern.
Watch for a short term (fools) pop with the legs being cut out by shrewd managers and our government financial management. The market is fine if you look in the right places. These being medical, mass transit, security, and food stores/mini markets. Beware of chip tech, construction, banks, and automotive during the short term (rape) pullback. I am long in terminal illness research/diagnostics and electric energy suppliers (coal, gas, solar). And I like China. Current mix: 40% CDs, 30% bonds, 25% stocks, 5% cash. Good luck my friends.
=D~
+1
Jan 9th, 2010 (5:55 pm)A lot of the confusion about the economic feasibility of the Volt would dissipate if people realize it should be looked at two ways: first, from the point of view of the individual owner, whether the extra cost of the big battery can be amortized over a reasonable period–say five years, for a great return of 20% per year. This depends on what the future cost of gasoline is and whether the battery pack cost can be brought down.
The second way to look at it is from a national point of view; quite different! Most important, we can’t go on indefinitely running up debt to China nor can we institute tariffs to isolate ourselves. But we can substitute sunlight-generated electricity for oil, though. That will solve the balance-of-payments deficit. We can also reduce the size of our enormous armed forces when they no longer have to protect us against the vagaries of unstable, hostile foreign oil sources. Problem is, these savings are national, not individual savings. Maybe the Feds should subsidize the cost of the big batteries and earn it back by the reduction in our national debt due to the savings on bond interest and armed forces.
+1
Jan 9th, 2010 (6:03 pm)Where GM states that they will get costs down to around half of what they are today, I would sure be inclined to believe that. If so, where an $8000 pack cost might become reduced to around $5,000, then it would be more important to get the initial Volt price down, and, in ten years, just do a note for the $5,000 replacement. So, GM is telling us that the battery cost in the future would be fairly close to a non-issue, because it would offset the then possible far higher cost of gasoline.
That’s really good news, because getting that initial Gen1 base price down as low as possible with each months’ datum collected on the battery longevities, might have the entire auto industry in a state of, well, shock (pun intended!!!).
The most basic Volt would be OK with many, (ie, vinyl flooring, etc) and, as reserve funds permit, maybe there could be a way to buy those moulded carpet inserts, etc, later on, so we can just get into the Volt in the first place.
Then, quick ramp-ups for greater production numbers might be the logical result as well.
I’d bet more teriffic news is just a dozen or so weeks away, and, it will be really enjoyable just to know that people can buy Volts.
Jan 9th, 2010 (6:10 pm)Hey! We’re people! (lol).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 9th, 2010 (6:12 pm)Unfortunately, I don’t have the study – I’ve requested a copy, but at the moment I just have the press release. So, I can’t do a serious review yet.
Preliminary review:
1) the study agrees that 1st generation li-ion costs $325 +/-$75, slightly less than the $350 figure I’ve been using for both 1st & 2nd gen cells,
2) it projects fairly strong growth of 25%/year (3% market share growing to 26% in 2020), and found that 9% of consumers wanted an EV regardless of price,
3) 2nd gen li-ion should cost the same or less to manufacture, so the roughly 3x factor very likely refers to the combination of “inactive” reserve to reduce depth of discharge and the overhead cost of the Balance of System (battery management system, temperature control, complex packaging ). This fits perfectly with the explanation of battery costs from the CEO from CPI (the company that builds the Volt packs today), who says the pack will cost $350/KWH for the cells, and $1,000 per KWH for the available 8KWH capacity of the battery pack, which equals $8,000 per pack.
“All four of these items together justify a 2.5x premium for the AT application (or approximately $ 1,000/available kWh) compared to the $350/stated kWh of a CE system, CPI says.”
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/02/profile-li-ion.html#more
So, in fact we seem to have confirmation of the previous battery cost info from GM and Nissan.
And the media reaction is much ado about nothing.
Jan 9th, 2010 (6:32 pm)pdt,
Thanks for the link.
I’ve trained 163 independent shops in Advanced Processor Systems. Several of the shops had expressed interest in these add on packs.
A leading supplier (not the link provided here) wants the shop to have 5 Priuses on hand, and, they will fly someone there to do the installs, they supposedly leave after the installs are done, (at a cost of $54,000), and, the shop supposedly “gets” to do all the ancillary work to ensure that all the other supporting systems are up to par.
However, what is never discussed with all these add on packs, is the extra workload added to these systems, many of which would be very old (5 to 7 years), and will need new electric transaxle overhauls at a sooner timeline than would have otherwise been the case. (I have recorded Genisys data regarding an abused-overloaded Prius transaxle. An $8,900 cost plus two more diagnostic hours means that the Toyota dealer service department estimate was “open ended”.)
A electric transaxle overhaul potential cost would have to be discussed with the vehicle owner before the decision to “try” these sorts of packs. The shop “hosting” for the “installer” for that one particular company would be potentially in a situation that up to 5 different Prius owners would be simultaneously waiting for their vehicles to have these packs installed, then, if any problems arise from the installations not due directly to the functioning of the added-on hardware, the “installer”, having fulfilled his limited duy, hops on a plane and leaves. Not a great business model.
The only way to do electrification is from the ground up, as most of us here already know.
More and more great news from GM ought to be out in about a dozen or so weeks.
Jan 9th, 2010 (6:55 pm)Unless there is an huge incentive to force retirement. Anybody buying CDs these days? CRTs? Pentiums? Heck, a HEMI gets 25mpg now.
Who knows what will happen in 10 years? Who knew that oil would hit $140/bbl in 1998? Who knew 10 years ago that all these manufacturers would be announcing EVs in 2011 and 2012 model years?
This is all too unpredictable to predict.
+1
Jan 9th, 2010 (6:57 pm)Polls and Surveys always phrase their questions to promote the outcome of the group sponsoring said Polls and Surveys.
How about adding this question to any poll concerning electric and hybrid cars:
“Would you be happier with your conventional auto purchase knowing that you are lining the pockets of “non-U.S.-friendly-regimes” every time you fill up with gasoline, or would you be happier with your electric/hybrid purchase IF, for just a little bit more in price, you could make those same Oil Sheiks and Dictators “cry like little girls” every time you pass by a gas station on your way home to recharge with American-Made electricity?”
Then let’s see the revised polling results.
+1
Jan 9th, 2010 (7:00 pm)Thanks for the link. Good article.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 9th, 2010 (7:13 pm)Dr. Patil is really gifted in understanding the entire picture, it seems to me. I really liked the interview he did here for us with Lyle a lot better, because he was far more detailed in the logic of the way CPI is making the battery for Volt. Don’t you think?
Jan 9th, 2010 (7:16 pm)Who knew that Tiger Woods could be such a jerk?!? (g)
Sorry if my opinion about retiring the fleet came across as too assertive. It wasn’t my intent.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 9th, 2010 (7:31 pm)Yes, Patil is one of those rare ivory tower types with an extraordinary sense for the practical application of his research. I’ve followed him and the MIT research for a while now.
I think that each interview taught me a lot. He was pretty Volt-centric in both of them.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 9th, 2010 (7:54 pm)Good news! A big-time consulting firm said it’s a “no-go”. In my mind, that Guarantees success.
First off, these guys are paid big bucks to be idiots, and they’re good at it.
Secondly, everyone talks about the *cost* of gas. Forget cost – think availability. Israel hits Iran. Terrorists hit production facilities in LA or CA. You name the event – parts of the country will be dry for weeks. This will happen, and when it goes every single household will quickly find out they need a Volt if only to buy toilet paper to wipe their butt.
Jan 9th, 2010 (9:00 pm)It’s all about profit margin. The lower the cost of the battery the higher GMs profit margin will be. The consumer will never see the savings, not in this industry. If you don’t agree, give me one example of a car thats price went from X to X-Y the following year or two.
NPNS!
Jan 9th, 2010 (9:00 pm)Let me get this straight, just because it has not been done, it can not be done. OK.
Still think a 2 cent tax would help the transition.
Starting immediately a tax would be charged at the pump, two cents a gallon to help with training for bomb laden underwear sniffing dogs. next month an additional 2 cent tax would be added for job creation road infrastructure repairs. The following month another two cent tax to help build the LA Vegas High Speed monorail. Next up would be a 2 cent carbon reduction tax. Every month there would be a new 2 cent tax.
These taxes would build slow enough that people would prepare for them. The nice folks in the Congress and Senate (are there any?) could lobby the next tax for their cause.
Why Not?
+2
Jan 9th, 2010 (9:06 pm)These studies don’t account for desire. When people get their hands on electric drive, they likely won’t go back to gas.
People are willing to pay more for convenience and desire. They will LOVE electric cars (unlike hybrids) not just because of fuel economy but… must we remind everyone:
No clumsy transmission, Just smooth acceleration.
Never, or rarely stopping at a gas station, a full charge every morning.
No oil spills and stinky exhaust fumes in the garage.
Nearly silent driving and preheat/cool while in the garage.
No oil changes, tranny fluid, mufflers, fan belts, timing belts…Just a lot less maintanence.
Etc, etc, etc…
An Apple Mac costs twice as much as a PC but they are gaining market share… I wonder why?
Yes… we must not forget that once these cars are on the road people will fall in love with them…
And they won’t go back to gas!
Jan 9th, 2010 (9:20 pm)THE VOLT!
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 9th, 2010 (10:07 pm)Off topic, but does anyone know what the music was in the battery video on Jan 7?
+1
Jan 9th, 2010 (11:07 pm)So who generated this report?
http://www.calcars.org/calcars-news/1055.html
$2000/kwh in April ’09 and $1000-$1200 in Jan ’10 per their own analysis and they say improvements will be too slow to help much by 2020?
Puuuleease. Nobody with half a brain is going to believe this FUD.
Jan 9th, 2010 (11:21 pm)I agree with the post saying that you have to factor in the driving experience, not just dollars. How much do people pay now for ICE cars which are very quiet and have plenty of low speed grunt? The premium is a heap more than $10K!
Also, how much cheaper will the Volt be to maintain/service than an equivalent ICE car? Plus convenience- no visits to gas stations and less to mechanics (electricians?).
Cheers,
Justin DT
Jan 9th, 2010 (11:21 pm)LOL, actually, some people function pretty well with half a brain!
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+2
Jan 9th, 2010 (11:33 pm)The Ford Model T
In 1909, the standard 4-seat open tourer cost $850 (equivalent to $20,091 today).
In 1913, the price dropped to $550.
In 1915, the price dropped to $440.
By the 1920s, the price had fallen to $290.
Sales were
69,762 in 1911
170,211 in 1912
202,667 in 1913
308,162 in 1914
501,462 in 1915
In 1914, an assembly line worker could buy a Model T with four months’ pay.
Prices dropped so radically because of increasing efficiencies of assembly line technique and volume. Henry employed vertical integration of the industries needed to create his cars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T
I’m looking forward to Chevrolet doing something similar with the Volt.
Happy New Year.
Henry Ford understood well that production volumes and costs are inversely proportional.
Jan 9th, 2010 (11:36 pm)Most cars last around 10 years. Some last longer. Some get in a crash after 3 years. So 10 years is a good average from assembly line to junkyard. That’s just 1 decade typical turnover for personal vehicles.
The real problem is this: When will most cars on dealers lots be plug-ins? I think that will take at least 10 years. It takes a while for stuff like this to catch on.
Of course, if gas prices go up to $5/gallon, things will go faster. And if gas goes back down to $1.50 gallon like a year ago, things will go much slower.
Jan 9th, 2010 (11:55 pm)IMHO, cars last a lot longer than 10 years. Haven’t you seen any pre-2000 model year cars lately? My family is driving two of them. Although it’s our normal practice to drive cars until another one is NECESSARY, I *do* admit that we’re trying desperately to hang on for the Volt. (We’ve never had the experience of having a brand new vehicle, so this one will be new on SO many levels!).
Yes, higher gas prices may hasten the acceptance of the new tech, but then again, maybe people will just drive less rather than make a big purchase.
Keep it going, GM! We’re counting on you.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
+2
Jan 10th, 2010 (12:38 am)One of the things that seem to be missing in all of these analyses is innovation. For example, suppose a method were discovered (e.g, a new anode or cathode design) that allowed the battery to discharge reliably and repeatably down to 10% of total charge. Effectively, the energy density of the battery has nearly doubled – without any change to the underlying battery chemistry.
That’s just an f’rinstance. My point is that we are in a golden age of material science and chemistry – and now that there is some serious money to be had by building a better battery (for the consumer market as well as the automotive market) – a host of clever scientists and engineers will without a doubt bring to the market a steady stream of new and better battery technology.
Success of the Volt will only accelerate this, but even without it, the electrification of the automotive industry is coming, and all the major players know it. Just look at the concept cars that are being built for the auto-shows. Half of them are hybrids/EREVs/BEVs.
Jan 10th, 2010 (12:48 am)I think a suscessful retrofit of an old Prius can be done without prematurely damaging the electronics or the motors.. just monitor the temperatures in those devices and keep them in check.. these are not brushed motors with wear points.. just lubricated gears, a chain and ball bearings, these items can potentially have a very long life if not abused.. the life of the ICE in the Prius should also be extended due to the increased workload of the electric system.
I think most people would get better results from a 2010 Prius, apparently it has been designed to be plug-in ready from the factory.
Jan 10th, 2010 (1:23 am)“We’ll see. Consultants have been wrong before.” And nowhere is this so clear than the fiasco in Wall St…Consultants have been wrong before big time…
Jan 10th, 2010 (4:41 am)Does anyone know for sure if these costs per kilowatt hour are for usable kWh (8 for the current battery) or total kWh (16)? Thank you.
Jan 10th, 2010 (7:43 am)True, but it is those with less that are vulnerable
Jan 10th, 2010 (8:20 am)The key: MPG in CS mode.
————-
If over 50MPG, then there is a proof of concept the serial approach is efficient. Put a small 0 miles AER battery in it, and keep 40 AER batteries, 80 AER, +++ as an available extension for those who can afford it. Success of the VOLTEC serial approach will not become battery dependant.
if below 50MPG, then it gets risky, because success of the serial approach will definitely be dependant of battery issues.
——————-
I believe GM is aware of that, and that can only explain why this critical info, the MPG in CS mode is still kept secret. We know now everything about this car except this. Except THIS.
I have few nails to chew left, please GM, bring that info ^^
Cheers
Jan 10th, 2010 (8:25 am)Just a little bit on price reduction. I know if anyone suggests the Volt battery cost is other than $8000, Dave G posts his evaluation and says any other view is wrong. Lets leave it that I believe Dave G’s evaluation is wrong.
The price or cost (and spare me the lecture of the difference) will decrease for two reasons, (1) the economy of scale – as large cell lithium battery production goes from hand made to tens of thousands of cells by essentially robotics, the cost per cell will fall. And (2) either a different chemistry will emerge (unlikely) or a differing structure of the cell (i.e nanowire) will emerge so that the energy density increases without significantly increasing production cost.
The combined effect of these two expectation will be a reduction in the cost of vehicle batteries, perhaps cutting the current cost in half.
GM has indicated that the cost of the LG battery for the Volt is “hundreds less” than the oft printed estimate of $1000 per kwh. That puts a ceiling at $800 per kwh. My view – and yes I know very well it is contrary to Dave G’s view – is that the current cost is about $750 per kwh, or about $12,000 for the pack. And so my expectation is that this cost will be cut in half in the next generation of Volt battery in 2015, which would cut the cost of the Volt by about $6000. Time will tell.
Jan 10th, 2010 (8:28 am)How ironic, The want list just hit 51,000.
LJGTVWOTR
Has Plug? Have Sale
+1
Jan 10th, 2010 (8:53 am)When the flat screen came out, they cost from $10,000 to $15,000. Today we buy them for about $2000 and they keep getting better. Has their been a major breakthrough? Only in price. The breakthrough came in automation. The same will happen with the Volt battery pack. GM really knows how to automate! I know this from over thirty of experienced with them doing such projects.
These people who come out with these studies should have their head examined.
+1
Jan 10th, 2010 (8:57 am)This Thread has a lot of great info on the cost of the Volt going forward.
-It is very expensive now but costs will fall fast.
-There is a tax credit that coupled with fuel savings makes the car affordable now except for one thing–>
The credit needs to be cash as purchase time.
I’ve posted several times on this site that ‘I plan to purchase at the end of 2012′. I say that because I want to buy at the very end of a year so I don’t have to wait a year to get my $7500.
This isn’t some $500 credit for insulation, this is a lot of money. As things stand now GM will have sell more than they can make throughout 2011, but they will see a huge spike in orders that can’t be filled at the end of 2011, then all these folks (I’m sure I’ll be one) will try and figure how to order a car in 2012 for delivery as late in the year as possible.
Why can’t the government every do anything without including mass quantities of stupidness.
It would be more effective to lower the credit to $7000 cash at purchase than $7500 on next years taxes.
Jan 10th, 2010 (9:07 am)Tag, I didn’t mean to jump on your post earlier and I respect your opinion, but, I think that ownership and longevity are way lower than you are thinking.
Cars that last longer go into the secondary market (used car sales). I think that 10-year ownership is outside the norm. Cars greater than 10 years (150k miles) old cost more to fix than they are worth. Higher-tech computers, transmissions, fuel management systems are not generally repairable by owners. When they go, they are expensive to fix.
Here are some statistics. I couldn’t find a better one quickly, but, 40% own their cars 6 years or more. The other 60% are less. It doesn’t show, but, 10-year owners would be a small number.
http://www.nacorp.com/NAC2/pdf/Vehicles.pdf page 7.
Most people I know trade cars in 3 or 4 years. They either get tired of them or something new really grabs their attention (or vanity). It doesn’t seem to matter if they owe on the old car. It’s just rolled into their new loan. I know this is counter-intuitive and financially dumb, but, that’s what happens.
There’s probably some scrappage study by the gov’t somewhere. Here is a blog suggesting that scrappage rates will exceed sales rates for the next 10 years. For 2009, 4 million more cars were scrapped than bought. new.
http://blog.sustainablog.org/us-car-fleet-2009/
Total fleet replacement could happen sooner than we think if a perfect storm of regulations and technology push us faster. A catastrophic fuel event (very high price and/or very low availability) could accelerate this even further.
Jan 10th, 2010 (9:29 am)Yes, Herm,
A new plug-in would indeed be the better choice.
Wear is a product of load times time. Electrical loads times time, dynamic loads times time, and heat loads times time. All of those conspire to accelerate the transaxle motors toward ultimate end of life about twenty times faster, for whatever remaining life expectancy there is left in the first place. Also, high sustained rpms for far longer periods of time are a wear factor consideration really are not designed into those in the second place additionally.
Of course the conversions can be done because they are doing them. But where company ethics are concerned to ensure something called “informed concent” of the customer, this is not being done. That’s wrong. You just don’t do something to someone’s vehicle and not tell them that the modifications will shorten the life of anything else not originally designed for those modifications.
You’re right, that they ought to just wait for a plug in, because $11,000 for the pack and software, plus the risk potential of $8,900 for a transaxle and other items to overhaul, and, you have a poor investment of $20,000 in a vehicle which has a downgraded worth by $7,000. Sounds pretty close to the price of a new plug-in, and, possibly even a Volt in the first place where the tax credit is applicable and the base retail price is reduced after all.
Jan 10th, 2010 (9:47 am)Thanks for the data. No one has ever accused me of normalcy (g) re car ownership or anything else.
New thread is up.
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 10th, 2010 (9:47 am)It’s not my evaluation. This comes from the CEO of CPI, the guy responsible for building the IVER and Mule Volt packs. And Bob Lutz essentially confirmed this figure. See post #24 for details.
Jan 10th, 2010 (9:55 am)If Dr. Patel’s paper yesterday is any indication, you’re right on the money Dave G. Don’t take it too personally when others insist on “being right”. More often than not it’s an honest difference of the reading (or their problem).
Be well,
Tagamet
Let’s Just Get The Volts’ Wheels On The Road!!**********NPNS
Jan 10th, 2010 (6:39 pm)Someone seems to be insisting they are right.
+2
Jan 10th, 2010 (10:20 pm)If you read the report, this price is based on hand assembled prototypes as originally supplied for the pre-production Volts.
BCG states that with high volume production price will come down 65%. This is all based on current costs and is very reasonable.
Although BCG talks a lot about 2020, it is not at all clear about how long it will take to achieve this high volume production, and it could be considerably less time.
What BCG said was that new breakthrough lithium battery technologies such as Dr. Lynda Nazar’s Lithium sulfur cathode or Dr. Cui’s Lithium silicon anode would be 10 years before they became sufficiently mature to be used in automobile applications. And until then the cost of EV ownership could be expected to remain above ICE ownership. This prediction is also base on $100/barrel oil.
I think the report is very well written and researched, and must be read in context of assumptions stated. GM tested LG Chem’s Lithium Manganese Polymer batteries for 2 years before they committed for production and an additional year to reach production. Even if new battery technology is proven and in production in 5 years, it would be 8 before we saw these in a car for sale, so 10 years is probably a good conservative estimate.
Jan 11th, 2010 (6:27 am)EEStor will save us all. Ya right!
Jan 11th, 2010 (8:13 am)Roy @ 121, nice evaluation of the BCG analysis.
+ one!
Jan 12th, 2010 (10:02 am)As a futurist, I’m a bit skeptical of the rosy outlook for the Volt specifically, but I’d agree that this BCG study is substantially flawed. According to the article, BCG states that without a battery breakthrough, “The reality is, electric-car batteries are both too expensive and too technologically limited for this to happen in the foreseeable future.” The conclusion is based on the a priori assumption that their will be no battery breakthroughs over the next ten years. This is highly unlikely. Literally dozens, if not hundreds, of research ventures are underway to build better batteries. A super battery or similar energy storage device as yet uninvented would be a complete game changer.
Plus, world crude oil production peaked in 2005 and total liquids peaked in 2008. In view of the fact that no significant exploration or drilling is underway that would provide significant new production in the next several years, it is likely that gasoline prices will top $3.50 in “the foreseeable future.” [Gotta love that weasel word phrase "foreseeable future." I used it here to illustrate that while it may sound convincing, it really has no meaning.] Anyway, gas prices should top $3.50 between summer 2010 and summer 2012. In the past, when gas prices topped $3.50, there was a dramatic shift in vehicle purchases, which would further drive battery research.
In short, once you read, “assuming no battery breakthroughs,” you can toss the rest of the forecast in the trash bin.
Jan 13th, 2010 (6:08 pm)cost will limit adoption… DUH!!!!