Navigant: 37 Million Plug-In Electric Vehicles To Be In Use By 2025

5 months ago by Mark Kane 27

Tesla Model 3

Tesla Model 3

Navigant Research in its latest report Market Data: Electric Vehicle Market Forecasts states that by 2025 it expects there will be more than 37 million of plug-in electric cars in use.

Chevy Bolt EV

Chevy Bolt EV

The reason for a such forecast is the expected price competitiveness of the upcoming long-range electric cars against conventional models, even without subsidies.

Some 400,000 Tesla Model 3 pre-orders were mentioned as a sign of the necessity for more affordable 200+ mile range BEVs.

Navigant said that the total number of plug-ins and hybrids to be more than 68 million. Simple math shows that taking HEVs alone would account for only 31 million, which therefore means that market the perspective for conventional hybrids going forward is less attractive than plug-ins.

“The market for LDVs is poised for change due to advances in battery energy density and cost, as well as coming innovations in connected and autonomous vehicle systems.

Around 2025, fundamental technology and industry trends are expected to enable BEVs to be cost competitive against conventional vehicles without subsides, underlining the likelihood that LDVs will eventually be electric rather than any other alternative.

According to a new report from @NavigantRSRCH, by 2025, more than 68 million light duty HEVs, PHEVs, and BEVs are expected to be in use globally, with over half being plug-in vehicles.”

“According to the report, long-range BEVs appear positioned for success as prices become competitive with economy brands after subsidies. This marks a milestone that could move BEVs from niche to mainstream, especially as the over 400,000 preorders of Tesla’s Model 3 indicate that the affordable 200-plus mile BEV could have a big impact on the vehicle market.”

Scott Shepard, senior research analyst with Navigant Research said:

“Battery cost reductions are having dramatic impacts on BEV cost and range, portending significant market growth in the years ahead. Further battery innovations alongside vehicle automation promise to significantly disrupt the nature and business of transportation, although this process will take decades to come to full fruition.”

Tags: , , , , , ,

27 responses to "Navigant: 37 Million Plug-In Electric Vehicles To Be In Use By 2025"

  1. leafowner says:

    and 1/2 may be Teslas!

    1. Vik says:

      Not sure about that, if tesla manages to get 18.5 Million Cars on the road by 2025 I suspect the total number of EVs would be way above 37 Million, I’m guessing 50% of EVs will be Chinese makes for the Chinese market which is by far the largest car market

    2. Mikael says:

      Hahaha… 🙂

  2. terminaltrip421 says:

    more good news: http://www.dallasnews.com/business/energy/2017/01/19/getting-rid-coal-power-plants-led-one-stunning-statistic-eia-says

    considering the very obvious potential trend of carbon emissions from transportation dropping, we just need to find a way to remove more carbon from the atmosphere. perhaps stopping deforestation in the short-term and doing it technologically in the long-term?

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Reducing deforestation is definitely a goal worthy of working toward, but it’s not realistic to think we can fully stop it so long as the human population keeps increasing.

      This was really brought home to me in a documentary about deforestation in the Amazon. A story focused on one slash-and-burn farmer, clearing out rain forest in order to plant crops. What he was doing was illegal in his country, but as he put it: What else was he to do? He had to feed his family. It was either that or starve.

      Human overpopulation is the Tragedy of the Commons writ on a global scale. If we can figure out how to significantly reduce human population, then most or all of the problems associated with pollution, resource depletion (including deforestation), and global warming will disappear.

      Tribal warfare in the Mideast and the refugee crisis in Europe are more symptoms of overpopulation. Those sorts of thing are, sadly, an all too perfect example of the principle “If you don’t control events, events will control you.”

      Too bad the news media never acknowledges the underlying problem of overpopulation; they just focus on the symptoms.

      Down off my soapbox now.

      1. Warren says:

        The problems in the middle east are also the result of drought, caused by climate change, which the developed countries are primarily responsible for. You, of course, choose to overlook that. The problem of overpopulation could have been addressed decades ago, when it wouldn’t have required killing billions of people through wars, or neglect. But the US actively blocked family planning efforts there.

        Don’t worry. Under Trump, you will be able to buy your Model S, as he did, and blame the poor for our problems.

        1. Warren says:

          Check out the per capita CO2 footprint of Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan, Nigeria, etc.

          The only nations, on earth, that match or exceed our impact are the four oil monarchies, that we prop up with our military, and weapons industry.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

          1. Warren says:

            Add up the GHG emissions of all the countries, where people are starving, and compare that to the US alone.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions

            Put that in your soapbox.

          2. speculawyer says:

            I don’t know if I’d say we prop them up. We certainly have the 6th Fleet there. . . but all those countries do buy a lot of weapons from us. That’s how those petrodollars are largely recycled back into the USA.

            But yeah, let’s get off oil so we don’t need their oil and so we don’t send weapons to these unstable countries that can blow up at any time.

            1. SJC says:

              Candidate Obama wanted to get off middle east oil in 10 years, with production and efficiency we have approached that goal.

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “The problems in the middle east are also the result of drought, caused by climate change, which the developed countries are primarily responsible for. You, of course, choose to overlook that.”

          I don’t at all overlook it. But unlike you, Warren, I look at the root cause, not one of the intermediary factors in the causal chain from the underlying cause to the effect.

          Cycles of drought and normal rainfall are normal, just as variations in climate — both short-term and long-term — are normal. Supportable populations can survive normal climate cycles, which include periodic droughts. It’s when population pushes past what is sustainable over the long term that droughts create famines and starvation.

          Drought and famine caused the downfall of the Mayan empire in the 9th century. Was that due to human activity increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, Warren? Of course not. It was a result of overpopulation in the region, followed by the very same sort of drought regularly experienced in that region. In previous cycles drought didn’t cause a serious famine because the population had previously been sustainable.

          The attempts by the global warming “Chicken Little” alarmists to paint every ecological hardship or catastrophe as if they’re a result of the increase of atmospheric CO2, are a contemptible prostitution of science. It’s scientific dogma and fake science, not real science.

          I don’t intend to belittle the very real effects of CO2 buildup. That has lead to acidification of the oceans, which is a genuine worldwide ecological catastrophe of enormous proportions. But the piffling little 2° increase in average global temperatures is something our species should be able to deal with quite easily. The swings between ice ages and interglacial periods is about 10°; we should stop whining about a piffling little 2°. Or more to the point, we should talk every bit as much about the benefits of that change as we do about the problems it is creating. Talking only about the problems, and none of the benefits such as increased growing season in northerly latitudes, and opening the arctic sea lanes for shipping, is part of the contemptible alarmism.

          The adverse effects of human activity on the Earth’s ecosystem, including the CO2 increase, are a direct result of human overpopulation. If human population was reduced to a sustainable level, then the earth’s ecology could absorb the pollution (and CO2 emissions, which I don’t count as pollution) which human activity generate.

          1. Warren says:

            The change from the last ice age, when NYC was under a mile of ice 250K years ago, until now was about 5 C. The change from 1750 until today has been 1.5 C. At current rates we will be 5 C above 1750 by the end of the century. This does not include the release caused by several likely positive feedback loops, which will take off after 2 C. Only a tinfoil hat nut would gamble with the world’s future as you propose. That piddly 2 C we will hit by mid-century, and the huge food, and water disruptions it will cause, will totally destroy the fragile global economy.

            1. Rightofthepeople says:

              IF any of that happens, feel free to say “I told you so.”

              1. Warren says:

                Frankly, that is the only thing that has been keeping me getting up in the morning, for decades.

          2. Warren says:

            So what is it about Trump that has you so upset, then? Sounds like you are on the same page. Climate change is just a thing. We can entrepreneur our way outta this. It’s all the fault of Mexicans and Muslims. We are exceptional…blah, blah, blah.

  3. realistic says:

    A little arithmetic on top of Navigant’s numbers…

    Looking at global plug-in delivery estimates from the insideev archives and some other sources, the world added about 1.8M of them from 2010 to date. Assuming a 10% attrition rate of that fleet between now and the 2025 milestone, the world needs to add a little over 31M plug-ins through those years. Give or take it’s around a 40% CAGR for plug-ins 2017-2024, with plug-ins capturing about 15% of the global LDV market by 2025 (that’s with total LDV sales growing about 2%/yr).

    So very roughly expect around 15M plug-in sales in 2024 in a total LDV market of 105M. (Disclaimer: claiming even two significant digits of accuracy is arrogant, hence ending all of these numbers in zero or five is indicative of the approximation).

    More assumptions on assumptions: if 60% of the Plug-in sales are pure BEV, 2025 will mark the first year of BEV sales in excess of 10M units.

    That’s in the same general vicinity as projectionc by every major transport player, from oil companies to the Automotive Mfgrs to Tier I suppliers to Battery companies, despite very different paths of estimating.

    Can’t say there’s much to argue with, so I suppose I won’t be spending big coin on the Navigant study paper.

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Even aside from the problem that Navigant’s studies almost always seem to be very poorly researched, there is a very definite limit to the ability to predict the future here. I think most regular readers of InsideEVs’ comments are familiar with the concept of the classic “S”-curve of adoption of a new tech during a disruptive tech revolution. We should expect sales of PEVs (Plug-in EVs) to enter a sustained period of exponential growth one of these years. Perhaps that has already started. Unfortunately, I think we won’t be able to tell when that starts; I think we’ll only be able to see it in hindsight.

      So far as I can see, all predictions such as Navigant’s assume straight-line growth in sales, and not exponential growth at any time. Therefore, all such predictions are useless.

      “It’s tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” — Yogi Berra

      1. Doggydogworld says:

        40% CAGR **is** exponential growth.

        1. Eco says:

          Tesla is at 58% CAGR, if that continues they’ll increase sales by 100 fold in 10 years. Using your 40% CAGR for the entire EV industry, it’ll take 14 years for a 100 fold increase. Estimating the entire EV industry is at 1% now, it’ll be near 100% in 14 years! 🙂

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Doggydogworld:

          “40% CAGR **is** exponential growth.”

          Okay, and I see that CAGR = Compound Annual Growth Rate.

          But I was criticizing Navigant for using straight-line growth projections. It wasn’t my intent to cast aspersions on Realistic’s projection; my apologies if I wasn’t clear on that.

    2. Eco says:

      Tony Seba has an interesting comparison to previous transportation disruptions … in 1900 New York city had 99% Horse & Buggy vs 1% “Horseless Carriage” … by 1913 it was 1% Horse & Buggy vs 99% “Horseless Carriage”!
      http://tonyseba.com/

      1. speculawyer says:

        He’s very optimistic and I hope he’s right . . . but he’s winging it and just assuming some cost reductions without knowing how they will happen. They might happen, or they might not. I hope they do but I like to have a convincing technological roadmap.

      2. ffbj says:

        Sadly horses are not cars. It could hardly be shown by that comparison, that evs will take off vs the ice as cars did over horses.

        Going from a horse to car is decidedly a different animal. In most cases in a car you are protected from the weather, roads are designed for cars not horses, though even in this day and age horses are useful in rural areas you hardly seen them in the city, except for parades. Of course the wealthy had carriages, which added another layer of expense. Stable boys, grooms, footmen, drivers…etc
        You would have to stable and feed the animals and only well heeled city dwellers or farmers, who used them as work stock, could afford to, or had facilities to do so.

        Other negative factors such as cleaning up the mess are not needed with cars. They don’t drop manure everywhere.
        On many levels cars were just so much better than horses.

        Now with the transition to evs we have a situation where is ev is better, but not so much as to cause a mass exodus from the current mode of transport, as with horse to car, and so this comparison has faults on many levels. Though it is valid to show that rapid change can occur, but only if certain conditions are met.

  4. speculawyer says:

    That is only 8 years from now . . . that’s a pretty big call. But perhaps a LOT of that will be in China where China will push people hard into EVs to make sure they don’t become too dependent on oil.

    1. ffbj says:

      …even as they continue to import more oil, which is rising in price.
      They are highly motivated to transition to evs for multiple reasons, this being one.

  5. speculawyer says:

    “The market for LDVs”

    As someone that writes for a living, it is a huge pet-peeve of mine when people use acronyms without defining them first. WTF is a LDV? Oh . . . an exception to the rule is when the acronym is extremely well-known like WTF.

    1. Rightofthepeople says:

      That annoys me too, and it took me a few minutes to translate this one.

      LDV = Light Duty Vehicle

      And happy Inauguration Day to my fellow Americans! Whether you voted for Trump or not, we should all enjoy and appreciate the extraordinary and peaceful transition of power that we enjoy every 4 years.

Leave a Reply