Global EV Markets

[Kamuelaflyer]

https://insideevs.com/news/450968/evs-production-cost-parity-ice-2024/

Something else to consider in this mix. All speculation of course, but worth considering?

From the inside ev website.

EVs May Reach Production Cost Parity With ICE Cars By 2024

By: Gustavo Henrique Ruffo

That’s what UBS Evidence Lab analysts believe, at least.
We always heard that UBS was a bank, but it is way more versatile than we could imagine. The company has an arm called UBS Evidence Lab that is a team of experts working “across 55 specialized labs” and willing to provide data for investment decisions. These guys went after electric cars and believe they will reach production costs parity with combustion-engined vehicles by 2024. And this is just the beginning of excellent news.
If you think that this cost parity needs the $100/kWh magic number to be achieved, think again. According to the UBS Evidence Lab analysts, that will happen in 2022 or even sooner: by 2021. Yet, we will have to wait at least two more years for EVs to cost the same to produce as cars that burn fuel.

The interesting part of the report is that the magic number represents savings of $1,000 to $1,500 per car. That’s a lot of money – especially for companies that produce thousands or millions of them – but the total gap will still be around $1,900 in 2022. Luckily, as you already know, it will take only two years for the costs to be exactly the same.
With these prices, UBS Evidence Lab projects that the market share for electric cars will be around 12 percent in the US by 2025. Europe and China will have similar shares: around 17 percent by 2025 and 40 percent by 2030.

UBS Evidence Lab used 12 analysts to reach these results. And they are not based solely on calculations but also on the teardown of seven major cells used in EVs with the help of P3 Automotive.

Of the seven batteries analyzed by UBS Evidence Lab, the one made by Panasonic and used by Tesla is still the best, but CATL’s NMC 811 batteries almost beat it. LG Energy Solution – the former LG Chem – took third place by a wide margin due to lower costs when compared to the fourth, SK Innovation.

According to the UBS Evidence Lab report, “Tesla continues to lead with the best overall powertrain technology,” but “the cost lead in battery cells is minor by now and will depend on its new proprietary cell design in the future.” In other words, it will need the 4680 format to succeed. LG Energy Solution is either working with Tesla on it or developing its own solution, which may threaten Tesla’s current lead.

The report is very rich and full of information. We will try to extract more information from it as soon as possible. Still, it also mentions that any automaker willing to be competitive has to adopt the same all-in now adopted by Volkswagen and Tesla since the very beginning.
Every other company willing to make a more gradual transition will be in the middle of the rope bridge when it gets cut. Goofy shows what follows right above.
Source: UBS Evidence Lab via Carscoops

 

[dbsb3233]

EVs May Reach Production Cost Parity With ICE Cars By 2024

So in order words, they basically think a 2024 Premium Mach-E AWD ER will be $45,000.

 

[Kamuelaflyer]

So in order words, they basically think a 2024 Premium Mach-E AWD ER will be $45,000.

More or less, they think. Despite their arguments, I don't think prices are going to converge that fast. Worth reading though.

 

[ChasingCoral]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...ea2b5a-1752-11eb-8bda-814ca56e138b_story.html

“Japan's new prime minister, Yoshihide Suga, committed his country on Monday to reaching a target of zero emissions of greenhouse gases and achieving a carbon-neutral society by 2050, with a "fundamental shift" in policy on coal use.”
...
“The government sees hydrogen as a new source of energy, Kajiyama said, while also having high expectations for offshore wind power. Coal would be a feasible source of power only to the extent it could be offset by carbon capture, utilization and storage technology.”

 

[Kamuelaflyer]

Most hydrogen production for fuel cells currently requires petroleum oil as I recall. That's not really going zero emissions except at the figurative tailpipe. But it is the ideal solution for manufacturing concerns with vested interests in prolonging fossil fuel dependency. Much like whaling in the mid 19th century imo.


For those wanting a quick down and dirty as to just why whaling was such a big industry:
https://www.livescience.com/why-whaling-nineteeth-century.html

 

[dbsb3233]

More or less, they think. Despite their arguments, I don't think prices are going to converge that fast. Worth reading though.

I doubt we'll get to purchase price parity (w/o tax subsidy) that soon either. Maybe after factoring in a lifetime of fuel savings, but not actual purchase price. That's like a fully-loaded BEV-version of an Escape Titanium being had for around $35,000.

 

[janitorjim]

 

[RonTCat]

If I have learned anything, it's that nothing is free. There are only trade-offs.

You aren't going to fix the CO2 problem by going to all EV. There are over 6 billion of us exhaling CO2 continually, whether we have a car helping add to that total or not. A large number of us don't have a car helping add to the CO2 total at all, and we who are lucky enough to have one, use it for a fraction of the day. Doubt any of us can stop breathing, even the most fervent climate change folks. There were only a fraction of that many of us only a thousand years ago, maybe even a few hundred years ago.

So what about solar and wind? Will the capture of sunlight which normally would warm the planet, and the slowing of the wind by wind farms, ultimately affect the weather as much as atmospheric CO2 increase? Hard to say, because both techs are at such small scale that the impact would be hard to measure, and there really isn't anyone measuring anyway.

Am I just choosing between saving polar bears and migrating birds who splat on windmills, or creatures that need the warm climate to survive? I have no interest in picking the winners or losers here.

I'm not arguing climate change here, I'll let the science do that. But it has become a political football... what would it look like if California sat on the worlds biggest coal reserve, and West Virginia had all the electric/electronic engineers? If this causes the geographic narrative to change, then I guess it's not about the science after all.

Sponsored