NREL study comparing conventional vehicles to hybrids, PHEVs, and EVs

[roflwaffle]

Check it out. I can't say I agree with the assumptions regarding battery pack cost. Even the Volt in low volume would be at a maximum of ~$20k for the battery pack assuming it's at ~$800/kWh and a 1.75x markup, ~$10k less than the estimated price, but it's certainly an interesting read. Using the same markup for PHEVs/EVs as conventional vehicles also seems a bit excessive, since the net profit would be much higher (more is invested in a pack/motor/power electronics than an engine). At most I would expect similar profit margins to a conventional vehicle, and realistically I think manufacturers will produce them at or near cost like Toyota did w/ the Prius when it first came out, then expand the profit margin as they drive down costs in subsequent generations.

[rayfellow]

This from the paper - last page....

"Significant battery improvements can also provide cost-effective pathways to vehicle electrification. If today's
battery energy cost component goes down from $700/kWh to $300/kWh, PHEVs start becoming cost-effective.
PHEVs also become cost-effective if battery life improves by a factor of 10."

As improved battery technology, mass production, and intense competition ramps up - why wouldn't one make such an assumption?

[KarenRei]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

Check it out. I can't say I agree with the assumptions regarding battery pack cost. Even the Volt in low volume would be at a maximum of ~$20k for the battery pack assuming it's at ~$800/kWh and a 1.75x markup, ~$10k less than the estimated price, but it's certainly an interesting read. Using the same markup for PHEVs/EVs as conventional vehicles also seems a bit excessive, since the net profit would be much higher (more is invested in a pack/motor/power electronics than an engine). At most I would expect similar profit margins to a conventional vehicle, and realistically I think manufacturers will produce them at or near cost like Toyota did w/ the Prius when it first came out, then expand the profit margin as they drive down costs in subsequent generations.

Wow, they're still pushing those same way-overinflated battery price numbers they were routinely dinged on the last time around? Sad. Also, show me where you can get a remotely decent motor and controller for that price. You think you can get the Tesla Roadster's motor and inverter for $4.4k? Really? Good luck with that. :P 5-10 years from now if mass produciton hits as is hoped, quite possibly, but not now. If you find a Tesla Roadster-output AC drivetrain for $4.4k, tell the world. You can't get an AC24LS and a DMOC445 for that price. Even if you go DC, you'd be paying that much for just a Z2K controller.

They then "validate" their numbers by comparing to the MSRPs of actual vehicles. They're way underinflating drivetrain costs and overinflating battery costs, and using a pure fantasy MSRP for the Volt (nearly $50k, judging from the graph? Suuuure...) so that they get within the ballpark -- with their whopping three EV datapoints. What a scummy, dishonest approach. The Roadster doesn't even us the same chemistry or pack layout as the others, so assigning it the same battery cost is automatically going to be a bad assumption. And then using a constant "markup"? As if the chassis and other non-EV components that make up an eBox cost ~4 times what those of a stock Scion do? Please.

Keep going and it gets worse. Today's tech, 50% SOC, and you get ~2k cycles or less? Really, only 2k cycles? GM's going to be doing a lot of pack replacements under their 10 year/150k mile warranty, then!

How can people put their names on this with a straight face?

[speculawyer]

This study makes the #1 mistake that is in virtually all of these studies. As far as I can tell, they assume that gasoline prices will remain constant for the next 15 years. It doesn't take Einstein to figure out that is a really bad assumption. Gasoline prices are going to rise. They are going to rise much faster than inflation. They are going to rise much faster than electricity costs . . . just look at the data from the past! (And even if they did raise at the same rate as electricity costs, which they won't, the monetary effect is still much greater on the gas since you are starting with a much larger value.).

It is really discouraging how bad these studies are. Really . . . why do they always make that very simple mistake? It won't be 2008 for the next 15 years! Aaaarrrgh!

The estimated Volt manufacturer suggested retail price (MSRP) estimate of $48,000 is based on the cost that would be required to make it profitable today [11], not the $40,000 ($32,500 after tax incentive) it is expected to sell for [11].

11. "At $40,000 the Volt Would Result in No Profit for GM," http://gm-volt.com/2008/03/25/at-400...profit-for-gm/

http://gm-volt.com/2008/03/25/at-400...profit-for-gm/

Follow the cite chain . .

Mar 25
At $40,000 the Volt Would Result in No Profit for GM
An article was just published by Businessweek by way of MSNBC, that discussed automakers’ efforts and requirements to be able to reach the new 2020 CAFE standards.
In it Bob Lutz was mentioned discussing the Chevy Volt. Here is a quote from the article:
“The company once targeted $30,000 as the price for a Chevy Volt. But the cost of developing the technology is making that an unreachable dream. Lutz now figures a more realistic price for the Volt would be about $48,000. He reckons that $40,000 might be possible, without making any profit. Only government tax incentives could take the price tag nearer to $30,000. ”
Source (MSNBC) [Spec: Dead link]

Lets not get too carried away because it seems major media often publishes errors about the Volt. In fact, on the same day as well, USA Today’s automotive writer James Healey, actually described the Volt as a two-seater! The article was actually about Mercedes’ plans to introduce electric Smarts into the U.S in 2 to 3 years. Keep in mind that USA Today is the highest circulation newspaper in the country.
Source (USA Today)
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...-battery_N.htm

So they are using an off-the-cuff remark from Lutz from two years ago to provide their hard data for the cost of the Volt? What kind of science is this? GIGO. Perhaps that number is relatively accurate but you certainly can't rely on a Fourth-hand report (Lutz->BusinessWeek->MSNBC->GM-Volt.com) of an off-the-cuff comment from a guy known to go off half-cocked! That is completely bogus.

WTF is this:

One approach with current battery technology could be cost-effective. If an acceptable method for plugging in while traveling along the roadway can be devised, it may provide a cost-effective pathway to vehicle electrification. This approach benefits from the low electric fuel cost of a large battery without the high cost, cycling wear, weight, and efficiency loss. Even with assuming a $1,000 price for the connection device, the cost to the consumer was still lower than for today's conventional and hybrid vehicles. This pathway requires infrastructure, but only along a small fraction of heavily traveled roadways to gain the same gasoline saving benefits as battery PHEVs.

Uh yeah . . . that is called an electric subway, electric train, or an electric bus. They are used all over the place. But you don't do that with cars since they don't follow pre-defined paths. Why even bother putting this crap in there? That is really not within the realm of reality. Is it possible? Yes . . . but only if there would be some massive top-down electrification effort. That is NOT going to happen. The only way that would happen is if gas prices went up like crazy and people begged for an alternative . . . but if that happened, those big expensive batteries would then be economically practical.

[KarenRei]

Let me narrow down your quote further:

But the cost of developing the technology is making that an unreachable dream.

In short, by the study adopting this (outdated quote) as their reference point, gasoline vehicles don't have to pay for the cost of their R&D (which was mostly done ages ago), but EVs do. What a short-term view.

Eventually there's going to be a few common platforms, with batteries able to be stowed wherever you want (one of the great design advantages of EVs), batteries in full mass production (~$250-$350/kWh, a bit more for assembled packs), high-power motors/inverters/chargers in mass production (cheaper than an ICE drivetrain), all put together with whatever shell the automaker wants on top. But for now, everyone has to do their own thing with low-volume hardware and a lot of process experimentation. Why should that count against EVs in a decision of whether or not going EV is a good thing? Gasoline had to go through that, too.

[speculawyer]

AAaargh. I hate these really bad studies.

Look at gas usage. They have the PHEV 40 still using like 170 gallons per year. With the 35MPG estimates for the Volt, that would be nearly 6000 miles per year on gasoline. WTF?

The people that will buy the Volt are the people who will really get most of their driving done in the 40 mile all-electric-range! It is a self-selecting market of thinking humans! . . . the vehicles are not just bought randomly!

If a person is going to do huge amounts of long distance driving, they'll probably get a car that gets really good mileage on gas alone and doesn't have a big battery (and thus costs less) since they don't benefit from the battery. Duh. Only the people that will see a big benefit from the battery (those who's commutes fit within the EV range) will pay for it.

Seriously now, what is wrong with these people?

[speculawyer]

AAAAARGHH! I need to stop reading that report because it just frustrates me with its AMAZING STUPIDITY.

In the chart, they list an "EV 80" . . . presumably a pure electric with a range of 80 miles. They list it as costing $90,000!!! What the hell? A Tesla costs a little over a $100K and that has a range of ~230 miles (and that is a super-sports car that does 0 to 60 in 3.9 seconds!). Even the way over-priced hand-built eBox conversion they cite only costs $70K. I don't know what the Nissan Leaf will cost but I think we can assume at least less than $50K (probably much lower). (I know some people are looking for $30K but I really doubt that . . . perhaps with a big monthly battery lease fee.)

Jeez . . . EVs are struggling to be economically practical but they are not THAT impractical.

[SlowSRT4]

Actually the Leaf will supposedly cost about $22k with the battery included. Because Nissan has stated that it will cost the same as a gas vehicle with the same features, which puts it at that mark. Then I assume it will qualify for the full $7500 tax credit, making it a quite affordable $15k.

[speculawyer]

AAAARRRGGGHHH!

I looked more. All this worrying crap about the battery lifetimes was making me scratch my head. Where did they come up with this issue? So . . . I followed the cite chain again.

Big source of their battery stuff:
15. Duvall, M., "Batteries for Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles," presented at The Seattle Electric Vehicle to Grid (V2G) Forum, June 6, 2005.
http://www.ceoe.udel.edu/cms/wkempto...ies-June05.pdf

Hmm . . . 5 years old. That is kind of out of date. Lemme look more. Oh, that is actually just a presentation he gave. The hard research if from a 2004 study.
http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/public/0...0001009299.pdf
OK . . . 6 year old data. You know, a lot has changed since then. Well, what is the actually data in that report . .

Well . . . take a look at Table 2-3 in that study . . . It only talks about data from 2 battery makers in 1999 and 2002!!

A study on modern technology that is using technology data from 8 to 10 years ago!!! What is the point?

Wait! It gets worse . . . Chapter 3 called "3 ANALYSIS OF BATTERY COST AND LIFE PROJECTIONS FOR ELECTRIC-DRIVE
VEHICLES.." IS ONLY ABOUT NIMH BATTERIES!

Why not talk about how a 386 processor from Intel can't do full motion video?!?

I can't believe how stupid these reports are!! It grabs data from a lame presentation from a badly done report using data a decade old!

[speculawyer]

Originally Posted by SlowSRT4

Actually the Leaf will supposedly cost about $22k with the battery included. Because Nissan has stated that it will cost the same as a gas vehicle with the same features, which puts it at that mark. Then I assume it will qualify for the full $7500 tax credit, making it a quite affordable $15k.

I don't want to burst your bubble . . . but you are in dreamland.

If you could buy that car for $15K after tax credit with battery included, I'd buy up their entire production, stick it in a warehouse, and sell them when gas goes above $4/gallon again. (OK, that wouldn't work because I couldn't claim all those refunds.)

But really . . . they cannot hit that price. I'd guess more like $22K after tax-credit and you'll have to pay a battery lease fee on top of that.