Battery Prices Expected To Be Under $100 Per kWh By 2020, Less Than $80 Per kWh Shortly After

8 months ago by Eric Loveday 67

What’s in the Chevrolet Bolt EV’s battery pack? 60 kWh of NMC cells

From at CES 2017 in Las Vega, there was some discussion pertaining to battery cost per kWh, which has just now surfaced via Ward’s Auto.

The gist is that in 2010, the U.S Department Of Energy set a cost target of $125 per kWh. The DoE was hopeful the goal could be met within the next ten years or so. Way back then, that seemed an impossible target, but here we are today and “several EV experts” are saying that figure was actually conservative.

Mercedes-Benz – long range BEV battery

Quoting Ward’s

“Back in 2010 the Department of Energy set a cost goal of $125 per kilowatt hour for an EV battery pack by 2022, because that would make electric-propulsion systems equal to the cost of an internal-combustion engine. In addition to individual cells, the battery pack also includes the supporting structure, cooling mechanisms, and battery management systems. At the time no one saw a clear path of how to get to that cost. But at CES, several EV experts told me the DOE’s number is turning out to be a very conservative goal. They assured me those costs will be under $100 before 2020, and not long after that they will go down to about $80 per kilowatt hour.”

The report concludes that if the $80 per kWh figure is hit, General Motors would see the Chevy Bolt cost decrease by some $4,000. That’s just one example. In the bigger picture, this reduced target means that electric cars will reach wider adoption quicker than initially anticipated due to costs (and thus price tags) that are much lower than seen today.

The Ward’s article speculates that “in another decade sales of EVs in the U.S. alone could grow from 80,000 a year to 1 million a year.” Let’s hope this turns out to be true.

Source: Ward’s Auto via Green Car Reports

Tags: , , , ,

67 responses to "Battery Prices Expected To Be Under $100 Per kWh By 2020, Less Than $80 Per kWh Shortly After"

  1. Ijmijon says:

    I understand that there is Government research being done in Canada to speed up Charging time and to lighten Up on battery Weight so that EV Batteries can be as fast to Charge as filling up an ICE Car with gas…..

    1. Paul Smith says:

      That would be Dr. Jeff Dahn Dalhousie U. who is partially funded by Tesla. This type of research of course is going on all over the world.

  2. Get Real says:

    Great news for the planet but not good news for the Fool Cell/Big Oil shills and the Tesla shorters and haters who like to carpet bomb their FUD here.

    Also, this news casts alot of shade on the laggard Auto OEMs and their foot dragging on building compelling EVs so they can milk their legacy ICe technology and protect their scummy stealerships.

    1. SJC says:

      Buses and truck can use fuel cells AND batteries, they would run LH2 from fleet yards.

      1. Nix says:

        All fuel cell vehicles use a fuel cell and a battery.

        1. SJC says:

          Of course they do, but not enough batteries. There is a discussion that it is either/or, I am pointing out an AND option where we have a PHEV with FC range extender.

          1. Nix says:

            A PHEV with Volt-like range and a fuel cell is the worst of all worlds. That’s because it now has to be compared vs. an ICE PHEV. GEN II Volt owners are only using their gas engine around 25% of the time, burning on average only approx 75 gallons of gas per year.

            So now you carry around an expensive fuel cell and hydrogen tank just to use it 25% of the time, and to just displace around 75 gallons of gas per year.

            But to work, it still requires the entire fueling structure all be built out everywhere. You still can’t do a long road trip with one, if one existed.

            The current hydrogen infrastructure becomes effectively worthless to you, because they are configured to be local fill-up, but a PHEV fuel cell would use battery for most local travel, not hydrogen.

            Then there is off-gassing of hydrogen, if you don’t use it and keep your tank full in case you need it.

            The extra cost of the fuel cell system would be much better spent on bigger ICE PHEV batteries.

            1. no comment says:

              the reality is that you cannot replace the entire ICEV fleet lineup with BEVs.

              furthermore, notwithstanding the price of the physical battery, there is still the problem of the amount of time that it takes to recharge the battery. yeah, i get it, 90% of the time, people will be recharging at home and it won’t be a problem. the problem with that, though, is that people don’t have to buy BEVs, so to most people it will seem silly to ditch ICEVs for BEVs when an ICEV doesn’t force you to make such compromised when it comes to range vs recharge time.

              since a fuel cell already has a battery, you only need to make the battery larger. as to long term storage of hydrogen, that is no different from the problem of long term storage of gasoline. in the Volt, you are forced to burn off the gasoline when it gets one year old. in the case of a fuel cell vehicle, when you are “forced” to burn off hydrogen, at least it will be a zero-emissions “burn off”.

              1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                “the reality is that you cannot replace the entire ICEV fleet lineup with BEVs.”

                Don’t worry, Hermione, them newfangled motorcars will never replace the horse!

                “as to long term storage of hydrogen, that is no different from the problem of long term storage of gasoline.”

                🙄

                Well, science isn’t for everyone.

                Dear heart, gasoline doesn’t leak past even the best seals, nor does it slowly leak through even the solid wall of a storage tank. Pressurized hydrogen gas most certainly does.

                1. no comment says:

                  what you don’t understand is that gasoline becomes stale. that’s why the Volt forces you to burn off gasoline that has been in the tank for more than one year.

                  1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

                    Yes, I understand that too.

                    So that’s two ways in which storing gasoline and storing hydrogen for a year would be quite different:

                    1. Nearly all of the hydrogen would leak out; the gasoline wouldn’t unless the tank wasn’t sealed properly.

                    2. Gasoline, being hygroscopic, would accumulate water in the tank; the hydrogen won’t.

  3. DonC says:

    Great news. However, IIRC the DOE cost estimate was for pack cost not cell cost. If true the DOE appears uncannily accurate. In some ways pack costs can likely come down faster since the costs of power electronics are more easily reduced.

    For packaging purposes you also would like to see continued improvements in the cells.

  4. Rightofthepeople says:

    Great! Perhaps by 2020 Nissan will sell me a 30 kWh pack for my 2015 Leaf for around $3500. I would gladly spend that to upgrade a degraded 24 kWh pack to a new 30 kWh pack assuming all else with the car is working well.

    1. Charlie says:

      Or even a 60Kw for $7k. Given the fact that low drag dictates only one common shape seems to me plausible that in 40 years from now all EVs will be considered a commodity (other than differentiating by interiors)and the real shift in value will be on the battery manufacturers. Who knows?

      1. John Brewer says:

        I spent just over $6700 100amp hour lifo4 16kw batteries then just a few years 100kw battiers will be just over 8k, with automation of both assembly of automobile continues to improve and the acentives end todays avg ice in a show room around $24k to 32k so that minus tge batteries to build and have profit is $14k the the ice vs EV is still little off at least compact cheap cars vs the primium ones vs thd ice is doable for converting the trucks lines to midsive to EV is not much cost difference, the the difference will be the piblic will expect elecfric cars to be affered on all lines of models , expecialy when one finds out the ongoing running costs are really no comparison so much less the econimics will dictate the path to least resistance when you have a 1/3 less parts in a EV vs a ice so its a lot chesper to mass produce EV also were still on the sane adoption tine line of when ice was replaced by ev and the horse carrages 120 years ago, one last point Tesla is not rsmpling up any faster in a tine line Vs. Henry Ford did, and they both sleped on the factory floor office to make that happen. What an interrsting twist is WW2 time line stll took the same time to shift industry but that was momumental! Lol dor DC folks!

    2. Nick says:

      So much this!

      I’d drop the money in a heart beat if I could upgrade my 2011 with 30kWh cells.

      1. Tom says:

        Why are you holding on to your 11′ LEAF?? I quickly dismissed the thought of holding on to mine for a better battery and dumped it almost 3 years ago after the battery “tanked” 25%. My Tesla MS has been a pillar of reliability ever since with only 2% battery degradation….

        1. Mr. M says:

          Why drive a Leaf if you can drive a Tesla you ask? Tell me more about the used Tesla you bought that was in the same price category as the new 2011 Leaf.

          Fail.

  5. Brandon says:

    This article has a great chart that shows lithium battery cell and pack prices from 2013 to 2016. Prices almost halved (dropped 50%) from 2014 to 2016.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-30/tesla-s-battery-revolution-just-reached-critical-mass

    ………. 2013 2014 2015 2016
    Cells: 411 367 234 199
    Pack: 188 173 116 74
    Both: 599 540 350 273

    1. Someone out there says:

      And even those prices are too high. The Huyndai Ioniq Electric charges $268/kWh extra for its battery pack compared to the hybrid version of the same car. That is the price to the end customer and there’s most likely a healthy profit margin in there.

  6. Ron M says:

    Trump got Scott Pruitt in as the head of the EPA the attorney general for Oklahoma that doesn’t believe in science or climate change.
    Sued the EPA many times, while denying that the injection of water from fracking caused earthquakes. Oklahoma went from 3-6 earthquakes a year to over 800 a year.

    1. ffbj says:

      Yeah, he’s a worthless anti-environment thug.
      He sailed through because Republicans are worthless too, when it comes to the environment.

      Despicable nomination from the heartless Trump. It’s running like a fine tuned machine all right. Just like the Tin Man did at one time. He didn’t have a heart either, but at least he wanted one.

      1. ModernMarvelFan says:

        Not to disagree with you, but 2 democratic senators voted for it as well.

        Those 2 Democratic Senators are pretty much Republicans anyway. 1 from WV, 1 from S. Dakota.

        1 Republican from Maine switched side.

        2018 can’t come soon enough.

        1. ffbj says:

          True. I know there are blue dog democrats, the entire country is pretty much in the hands of the right.

  7. Vexar says:

    “The report concludes that if the $80 per kWh figure is hit, General Motors would see the Chevy Bolt cost decrease by some $4,000.” Means GM is still losing money on units manufactured unless they manage to optimize production elsewhere.

    1. ModernMarvelFan says:

      According to who?

      The lying report that says $9K per car?

      Completely BS.

      1. ffbj says:

        Yeah, that was fake news, as the saying goes.

    2. Rich says:

      Losing money? Do you mean GM is “losing money” because they’re not making as much profit on the BOLT as profit on a $42K ICE vehicle? That’s GM’s definition of losing money on EVs … aka less profit. The idea that GM is spending more money to manufacture the Bolt than what they’re selling the Bolt for is unbelievable. If including R&D costs and factory retooling costs, please explain how this is any different than a new model design for an ICE vehicle.

      1. Drive Down Prices says:

        Very likely true. When we negotiated the lease on our Leaf, the salesman said “do you know how much profit we’re not making on this transaction?”, after calling us back to the dealership to accept our offer. Had to laugh at that one. Did we care? Hell no.

    3. Someone out there says:

      What? How does that prove the Bolt is losing money?

    4. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Vexar said:

      “Means GM is still losing money on units manufactured unless they manage to optimize production elsewhere.”

      I don’t see how you can logically conclude that.

      I think it’s fair to say that the consensus of the reviews of the Bolt EV is that the interior is far below the quality of what you’d expect in a typical gasmobile sold for $37,500 (before incentives). So it seems pretty clear that the Bolt is priced as high as it is because of the extra expense of the battery pack, plus the R&D costs for GM developing its first BEV since the EV1.

      As battery prices come down, GM could reduce the price of the Bolt and still make a profit, making the car more competitive with gasmobiles. Seems pretty clear and straightforward to me.

  8. speculawyer says:

    BOOOO-YAAAAH!

    Now I understand why various Executives have been coming out and saying that EVs are going to be huge in a few years (Proterra CEO, Audi exec, etc.) At $100/KHW, light-duty ICE cars just don’t make any sense. At $80/KWH, you’d be damn crazy to be buying ICE!

    Future so bright . . . gotta wear shades. Be sure to over-size those PV arrays to fuel up your EVs!

    1. Jake Brake says:

      Bingo, the batteries got good enough and cheap enough to reach parity and will continue to get better and cheaper. Plus OEMs cand meet emissions regulations past 2022 so it forces BEVs.

  9. realistic says:

    $4000 off the CoGS of a Bolt would mean (optimistically speaking) $5000 down from the current sell price. That means the rationally-equipped limited now has a price of $37k and change. Still too much, especially in a world of $0 ITC. Admittedly, the cost of ICE cars will be driven up by aftertreatment, new control schemes and of course electrification while EVs decrease, and the gap will shrink. So in all I guess 1M of a 10-12M annual LDV population being BEVs isn’t impossible. Added to PHEVs, the expectation of 30% LDV sales from plug-ins by 2025 seems to be on track.

  10. MaartenV-nl says:

    Every EV-site is writing about this Ward –auto piece, and each time I read about it I think the numbers don’t add up.
    What are we talking about?
    Battery Cells → battery packs → battery.
    Depending on the way from left to right, the battery price is 130% – 150% from the battery cell price.
    DoE targeted $100kWh at the cell level translate in $130kWh – $150kWh for complete batteries.

    In 2016 it was revealed that the GM-Bolt did have a Battery cell price of $145kWh.
    As a reaction Tesla revealed their complete battery price was below $190kWh in early 2016.
    Tesla GigaFactory was expected in early 2016 to lower the battery cell price by 30% due to economies of scale and modern production technology. Now Tesla expects the GF1 to outperform its early expectations. The GF has to ramp up production and get the kinks out of its processes. Entering 2018 a battery price of $130kWh (cells at $100kWh) seems realistic in the light of the previous revelations and statements. Tesla could pass $80kWh before 2021.

    The GM-Bolt cell prices can hit $100kWh in 2020 by a decrease of just 9% annually.

    But the decrease in cell prices will not stop in 2020. Ten years from now the prices will be at about 50% below the 2020 prices.

    And here comes the part I don’t understand. In the Ward-Auto article it is speculated that ten year from now the USA BEV market could reach 1 million. But with those battery cell prices, the BEV variant of every car model over the USA median new car price will be cheaper than its ICE or Hybrid variant.
    With a market size of 20million cars a year, 9 million buyers are expected to pay a (big) premium to have an ICE variant over the BEV variant of their favorite car.
    What could motivate 90% of buyers of above median priced cars to choose ICE in 2017?
    I think the other way around, 90% choosing the BEV variant is more realistic.

    1. speculawyer says:

      “DoE targeted $100kWh at the cell level translate in $130kWh – $150kWh for complete batteries”

      The cells are most of the cost. Creating the pack doesn’t increase it 30% to 50%. More like 10% to 20%

      1. Mr. M says:

        At the moment there are cars out there where the pack is 2,5 times the cost of the cells.

        Since every one is just starting to construct packs in BEV relevant sizes and cells have been build for ages already.

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      MaartenV-nl said:

      “Tesla GigaFactory was expected in early 2016 to lower the battery cell price by 30% due to economies of scale and modern production technology.”

      This oversimplification has been reported so many times that all too many now accept it as straightforward fact.

      The 30% reduction (or possibly as much as 50%) is the reduction compared to when the Model S was new, in 2012. It’s not a 30% (or more) reduction in price compared to current market prices.

      I don’t know that we’ll ever find out exactly what Tesla’s prices or costs are for Gigafactory batteries, but I suspect those who think their costs will be substantially lower than LG Chem’s costs for its new battery chemistry are going to be rather disappointed. Gigafactory batteries may or may not be slightly cheaper on a per-kWh basis than LG Chem’s average selling price — which is apparently substantially higher than the “sweetheart deal” price $145/kWh they’re charging GM — but at best, I seriously doubt they’ll be much cheaper.

      1. MaartenV-nl says:

        You are correct that the starting point for the 30% reduction of battery cells is not clear.
        But it is my understanding that the current, pre-GF prices af the Model S battery cells are already more than 30% lower than the prices when the Model S was launched.

        I understood the statement as meaning 30% below the prices of cells produced in non-GF optimized factories. With all the shipping and handling of the raw materials and intermediate products that is making those production processes costly and inefficient.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          “I understood the statement as meaning 30% below the prices of cells produced in non-GF optimized factories.”

          Let’s remember that the claim of 30% reduction in price is what Elon Musk has been saying for years now… altho actually, Googling the subject, I see a brand-new Electrek article claims 35% (link below).

          My understanding, based on what I’ve read and what other informed industry watchers have said, is that the original claim for 30% price reduction was based on the price Tesla was paying for battery cells when the Model S was new, in 2012.

          But Googling the subject just now, either that fact has been entirely lost in a very extended game of “telephone”, or else you’re right — that the current claim of a 35% reduction is based on the average price that EV makers are paying, and not on the cell price which Tesla was paying Panasonic in 2012.

          Since Tesla really doesn’t like to talk about its costs or prices for batteries or battery packs, I question that we’ll ever get a clarification of this from Elon or any other Tesla spokesman.

          https://electrek.co/2017/02/18/tesla-battery-cost-gigafactory-model-3/

  11. MaartenV-nl says:

    Correction***

    And here comes the part I don’t understand.
    In the Ward-Auto article it is speculated that ten year from now the USA BEV market could reach 1 million. But with those battery cell prices, the BEV variant of every car model with a price higher than the USA median new car price will be cheaper than its ICE or Hybrid variant.

    With a market size of 20million cars a year, 9 million buyers are expected to pay a (big) premium to have an ICE variant over the BEV variant of their favorite car.

    What could motivate 90% of buyers of above median priced cars to choose an ICE in 2027?
    I think the other way around, 90% choosing the BEV variant, is more realistic.

    1. Nix says:

      Typical brand new car buyers rarely buy the vehicle that makes the most financial sense. Even the decision to buy a brand new car (instead of a used car) is a financially questionable decision.

      If everybody based every car buying decision on just the cheapest car, everybody would be driving $15K cheap cars. Instead the median new car price is around $30-35K.

      Typical new car purchases are much more emotion based than you might believe.

      1. Someone out there says:

        “If everybody based every car buying decision on just the cheapest car, everybody would be driving $15K cheap cars.”

        If everybody was trying to buy those cars they wouldn’t cost $15k but a lot more.

        1. Mr. M says:

          They would cost even less since different companies are competing for market shares and a drastical increase in sales of the same model of each brand would lead to more simplification and mass order savings during manufacturing.

      2. speculawyer says:

        “Even the decision to buy a brand new car (instead of a used car) is a financially questionable decision.”

        It is not even “financially questionable” . . . it is financially a bad decision, period. Car purchases are largely ego and desire driven, not financially driven.

        1. Priusmaniac says:

          The optimum is buying a 4 years old car and selling it at 8 years old and the cheapest is buying a 4 years old car and driving it to the ground.
          But there are exceptions like when the first hybrid come on the market, which means you buy a fundamentally different technology and of course the Model 3 which means you are passing to the first practical long range ev technology. After those two exceptions it will be back to line one as usual for optimum and cheapest. Of course you can always chose to divert to please yourself.

    2. Another (Euro) industrial point of view says:

      Yes but around 50% of the costs of a car at car maker level as nothing to do with materials & engines etc.. but rather with labor forces, tooling depreciation, R&D, marketing, administration, etc…etc… therefor when a car maker sells a small ICE for around $15K EUR 13K the cost of the the materials & engine is around $7.5K.Likely the engine itself is around $1.5K. That’s still very hard to beat. E motors don’t come so cheap & then you need to add controller and batteries.

    3. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      “In the Ward-Auto article it is speculated that ten year from now the USA BEV market could reach 1 million. But with those battery cell prices, the BEV variant of every car model with a price higher than the USA median new car price will be cheaper than its ICE or Hybrid variant.”

      Battery prices for BEVs are certainly a large part of why BEVs are currently appreciably more expensive than comparable gasmobiles. But there are other factors: the cost of R&D for what will be a brand-new type of powertrain for most auto makers, and redesigning their cars around that different powertrain; and the cost of tooling-up to make a rather different type of automobile.

      And of course, there’s the economy of scale. This is a chicken-and-the-egg problem: the price of BEVs can’t come down until they’re made in quantities equal to gasmobiles, and BEVs won’t be sold in quantities equal to gasmobiles so long as they cost substantially more. That problem will gradually erode away over the coming years, leading to prices for BEVs falling faster and faster, which is why we can expect the BEV market to undergo a sustained period of exponential growth lasting some years.

      Let’s remember that makers of gasmobiles have had more than a century now to figure out ways to make them more cheaply. It’s still early days in figuring out how to make modern BEVs in a more cost-efficient manner.

      1. MaartenV-nl says:

        In determining the Price for a car go many considerations. Important are production costs, sales expectations, competitor prices and what the market will bear.

        Based on my understanding of this process and my expectations of developments in the next 10 years, I think the prices BEV variants will be below or equal to the prices of ICE variants of the same model car. At least in the top half of the car market.
        As an indication of this process look at the price of the new Hyundai Ioniq. The difference between the hybrid and the BEV version is just $5k for the same Limited edition trim level today. Five years ago this would have been impossible. Expecting the same price for both versions with an adequate 60kWh battery in 10 years seems realistic to me. And this is in the $25k price category.

        But I am thinking about cars of $35k.
        For the sake of argument suppose a new Toyota cuv, the BigAwesome, available in a plugless and tailpipeless version.
        Both exactly the same trim level.
        The ICE version has a latest hybrid technology drivetrain with a V6 24 valve lean burn dual turbo engine with a 10 speed automatic transmission. The latest CO2 emission regulations make this technology necessary.
        The battery electric version has a 100kWh battery and the same horsepower as the ICE version.
        Both have all wheel drive and the same sticker price.

        If you live anywhere with regular snow in winter, electric AWD is unbeatable.
        In 2027 charging at 350kW is no problem in most of the USA.
        In 2027 the fast majority has electric driving experience, if not as driver than at least as passenger.

        What thought process make 9 out of 10 customers prefer the gasoline version over the electric version?

        1. Agzand says:

          While I agree in principle, there are a few loose ends here. For one thing the power grid needs to expand to allow large scale charging of so many vehicles. This has to be done by actual consumer money. Right now electric cars and renewable energy are both subsidized. This means in the future electricity will be more expensive. At the same time any price decrease in batteries will be offset by phase out of subsidies. I don’t think for a 60kwh battery the cost reduction will be more than $7500, which is the current federal tax credit. Also there will be road use taxes etc.

          1. Brian S says:

            Given that most charging is done at home overnight when other usage is low there should not be much change required to the grid. It is afterall a similar load to a heater or AC. We don’t drive much so only charge every few days – I doubt that the grid even noticed we went electric.

            1. agzand says:

              Unfortunately the grid should be able to handle peak demand. So it could be in the middle of the day on a holiday travel day, or any other high demand occasion, like an emergency evacuation etc. where the grid is damaged. It is not that simple.

            2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              Seems to me that people arguing both sides of the issue are ignoring reality.

              Altho one can certainly make the case that much or perhaps most PEV (Plug-in EV) charging will be done during off-peak hours, and thus won’t require any new power plant or higher capacity electrical distribution system, this is nothing but wishful thinking. The transition from gasmobiles to EVs certainly will put higher demand on the electric utilities, and they will have to build out capacity to match.

              On the other hand, why should this result in higher electricity prices? Presumably increased capacity will only be built out to meet demand, so the relationship between supply and demand should remain roughly the same.

              It is said that the increase in demand for electricity from switching over to PEVs won’t be any greater than it was a couple of generations ago when people installed central air conditioning in buildings. I don’t recall that this caused electricity rates to spike upward in that era, so why should they now?

              I live in the area of Kansas with the fastest growth in housing. That means lots of new houses that all need electricity. A few years ago, they built a new electrical substation just a few miles from our house. Does that mean our electricity rates have been ramping steadily upward? Of course not! Because the local utilities have been getting new customers, and all that additional income is paying for the upgrades and expansions.

              Why would it be any different for PEV adoption?

          2. Rich says:

            “For one thing the power grid needs to expand to allow large scale charging of so many vehicles.”

            Don’t forget, processing one gallon of gasoline requires somewhere in between 5 to 7kWh of electricity. Every gallon of gas not processed due to EVs, frees up 6kWh of electricity on the grid. I know this is a generic statement and there are many variables, but IMO the concept is sound. In combination with Brian S. point that most charging will occur at the lowest demand time for electricity, we shouldn’t need much grid expansion other than normal growth.

            1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

              No, it requires an input of something around 4-6 kWh of energy per gallon of gasoline, not specifically electricity. Most of that energy comes from burning unprofitable petroleum fractions and waste gases. Some of it does come from electricity, yes, but not most.

              Since most of it comes from products which wouldn’t be profitable to sell, it doesn’t add that much to the cost. But it does add quite a lot to the amount of pollution emitted in the well-to-wheel production and use of oil; pollution which, if my understanding is correct, isn’t accounted for in most (or perhaps all?) studies which compare well-to-wheel emissions by gasmobiles vs. EVs.

        2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          MaartenV-nl said:

          “…look at the price of the new Hyundai Ioniq. The difference between the hybrid and the BEV version is just $5k for the same Limited edition trim level today. Five years ago this would have been impossible.”

          You make a good argument, but I’m not sure it’s correct. An unstated premise here is that Hyundai is making about the same profit margin on the Electric version as the hybrid version.

          That may not be correct. I’ve seen at least one claim that the Ioniq Electric is available only in very limited numbers. If that’s correct, then the pricing may have more to do with marketing and/or ZEV credits than to do with the profit margin. If Hyundai is treating the Electric version as a compliance car, then price will not be set by price + profit margin, as is normal for any product.

    4. Mr. M says:

      Do you know that the whole material cost of a fine ICE with exhaust emission controls is around 2-3k$. If you have 6 cylinders instead 4 the raw material cost increases by maybe 200$.

      A battery + electric motor + controlls will never be cheaper regarding the raw material cost (at least if you want a range of more than 80 miles BEV). A 20kWh nicht reach price parity some time…

      1. Rich says:

        This is the same argument made against most disruptive new technologies.
        Automobiles, Airplanes, Computers, cell phones, etc.

        This isn’t an “if” question. This is a “when” question.

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Mr. M said:

        “A battery + electric motor + controlls will never be cheaper regarding the raw material cost…”

        “Never” is a long time. Are you aware that at least in theory, batteries could have an energy density equal to gasoline?

        EV powertrains will achieve better than price parity in every way, including cost of raw materials, long before batteries reach the maximum possible energy density.

        It’s not just that the electric motor is much smaller and lighter than a gasmobile of equivalent horsepower. It’s that ICEVs need lots of Rube Goldberg kudges which BEVs don’t need. If you start counting those things, the list gets pretty long:

        Transmission
        Clutch
        Muffler
        Catalytic converter
        Oil pump
        Oil filter
        Oil pan
        Fuel pump
        Fuel filter
        Air filter
        Fan belts
        Timing belt
        Head gasket
        Various other gaskets
        etc.
        etc.

  12. agzand says:

    If these numbers turn out to be accurate, any price drop will be offset by phase out of subsidies. So there are still some challenges. The key issue is still the charging speed and infrastructure. You might need to charge on the go just a few times a year, but those times are the most inconvenient times with concentrated demand (e.g. everyone trying to charge half way between LA and SF on a labor day weekend.)

  13. Jake Brake says:

    Damm, looks like cats out of the bag meow. ICE hits peak market share in 2020.

    1. MaartenV-nl says:

      Nope, ICE market share was 100% before the Tesla roadster was launched. It is now at 99.5%. 😉

      1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Yeah, he would have been better claiming peak production, not peak market share.

        But I think it’s down to about 98.8%, worldwide. 🙂

  14. no comment says:

    what i don’t understand is that if battery prices are crashing at the rate suggested in this article, why are tesla powerwall/powerpack products selling at prices of over $350/kWh?

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Basic economics. Low production rate = high unit cost.

    2. Jake Brake says:

      Because they can.

  15. George says:

    Actually if you go to the Tesla website the powerwall 2 is $5,500 plus a minium of $1600 for insulation. So $7000 ÷ 13.5kwh =$518.52 per kwh. I varify on website last night.