BP – EVs Will Account For 15% Of All Vehicles Globally By 2040

APR 21 2018 BY MARK KANE 69

BP, in its latest Energy Outlook 2018 report for years 2016-2040, forecasts only moderate growth for plug-in electric car sales.

More than 20 years from now, in 2040, still only 15% of the world car fleet to be plug-in electric cars, according to BP.

That’s 300 million vehicles out of almost 2 billion, but we hope for much higher numbers.

Read Also – Big Oil Continues To Push Back Against Electric Cars

At the same time, BP expects steady demand for fuel for cars, despite EVs and overall improving efficiency. BP’s outlook seems to side with its core business of petroleum, but doesn’t really line up with most other forecasts.

Passenger car parc by type in 2040 – forecast (source: BP)

“This year’s Outlook argues that the penetration of electricity in the transport sector is best measured by considering both the number of electric vehicles (EVs) and how intensively each vehicle is used. In the evolving transition scenario, the share of EVs in the global car parc reaches around 15% by 2040 – more than 300 million cars in a car parc of almost 2 billion. However, the share of passenger car kilometres powered by electricity, which also takes account of the intensity with which electric cars are used, is over 30%. The Outlook shows how the interaction of fully-autonomous cars with shared mobility has the potential to substantially boost the intensity with which electric cars are driven.

A key uncertainty in the period to 2040 is the speed with which sales of electric cars increases. To gauge the significance of this uncertainty, the Outlook considers a scenario in which there is a worldwide ban on the sales of cars with internal combustion engines (ICE) from 2040. This scenario reduces liquid fuel demand by around 10 million barrels a day relative to the evolving transition scenario but, even so, the level of oil demand in 2040 in the ‘ICE ban’ scenario is higher than in 2016.

“The suggestion that rapid growth in electric cars will cause oil demand to collapse just isn’t supported by the basic numbers – even with really rapid growth,” explains Dale. “Even in the scenario where we see an ICE ban and very high efficiency standards, oil demand is still higher in 2040 than it is today.”

Read Also – BP Invests In Mobile EV Charging Company FreeWire

Changes in liquids demand from cars: 2016-2040 – forecast (source: BP)

See full report: Energy Outlook 2018

Categories: General


Leave a Reply

69 Comments on "BP – EVs Will Account For 15% Of All Vehicles Globally By 2040"

newest oldest most voted

Wishful thinking by BP. 15% by 2030. Once you drive an electric there’s no going back. Just wait until rental fleets offer electrics and more people have a chance to sample them. Don’t expect petrol to remain cheap either. The dinosaur industry is encountering extraction hurdles in the Permian. Fracking may have a shorter run than many expected.

If you look at actual cases that exist today, for instance comparing TX gas consumption to CA.
Will 12 million more people CA drivers consume less gas than TX drivers.
So it’s not just about evs, it’s about overall consumption, which will fall, and is falling

…except all the Californians (with jobs and cars) are moving to Texas

I would hardly blame them if they did. Too many people in CA, though there are too many Texans in TX.

Idiots keep repeating this yet the CA population keeps exploding…and no fox news, it’s not illegal immigration, it’s out of state migration. I wish your statement was true but as pretty much anything you post is a load of crap. The rate development is expanding and covering natural habitats is troublesome and yet the housing supply can’t keep up with demand. My house tripled in value over the last decade, can’t tell you how many times I thought about selling and retiring in HI. Why? Because i can. CA much like NY are the most capitalistic states with the biggest possibilities for individuals….but you keep your head in the sand if that’s what you do best.

You are dead wrong on this,….so says a study done BY the state of California:

California Losing Residents Via Domestic Migration

We have a net loss due to domestic migration, but our population still isn’t falling due to normal population growth (births). Also people aren’t leaving because they don’t like CA, they’re leaving because it’s ridiculously expensive here.

And what happens when all those Californians end up in Texas? Let’s just say the Republican dystopia there has it’s days numbered. Frankly Californian migration is one of the best ways for us to influence the rest of the country. We have too many people here already, so it’s a plus-plus.

Are you kidding me!? You can’t even read your own posted data? Look at the spread between in and out migration from 90’s to today. The spread is tightening meaning the population keeps going up all things considered. The number may be higher that in the past years but with the spread shrinking that means this number is less and less as a % of the total population. This is exactly what i see in LA area in the last 15 years. Our commutes are getting longer every year, our property price just keeps going up even though they are building everywhere.

You keep telling me ‘out of state migration is increasing California’s population’, and I keep telling you ‘you are wrong’.

Can you read that?

The jist of that article does not jibe with the referenced study.

I don’t think BP is clueless. I just think they’re trying to control the narrative in order to delay the inevitable demise of their business model, even if only slightly. When you are hugely profitable, even a few years means a ton of money you would otherwise not get.

The US is close to peak gasoline usage if not already there but worldwide still a few years away. No where close on peak diesel both US and worldwide. Diesel and fuel oil use is still growing worldwide.

Average life of a automobile is what, around 11 years? It’s going to take a long time for all this to come to pass.

Plus the current electrical grid can’t support it

Very pro EV here, just going to take a long time both US and worldwide.

Plus by 2040 probably have at least one or two global recessions which slows everything down. Once everything peaks the prices will plummet, none of this is linear.

If you look at Norway where evs have taken off, they have no problem with their electric grid. Even though they are beyond the BP prediction, in numbers of evs. So grids can easily support increased ev usage. Probably not in India with it’s miserable grid or other developing countries, but that’s a separate problem. There will be laggards but as evs infiltrate other areas of transportation, busses for instance, and eventually trucks, and even semi-trucks will be electrified, oil consumption will fall. On the other end we have these miracle gasoline engines, which may actually come into production, and will reduce overall consumption. Plus turbo-boost and other methodologies to increase efficiency, as they desperately, but in vain try to match ev or even phev cost to run. To reach the BP prediction will take a decade not two. The average is 11 years, but that doesn’t mean everyone that has a car now is going to hold onto it for 11 years. Most people get another car after 5 years, it’s just the used car is then sold, which extends the life of the vehicle on the road. As restrictions on ice in inner cities increase fewer people will… Read more »

Norway isn’t beyond the numbers if you go by the percentage of EVs penetrating the market, which is what I understand BP’s 15% number to be about. I don’t know what market penetration percentage Norway has, but in the U.S. it’s somewhere around 0.02%. Norway is probably around 5% at most if I would have to guess.

Norway is above 8% but below 10% of fleet penetration of PEVs. With BEV to PHEV ratio being ~75%/25%.
They will reach 15% fleet penetration sometime next year.

Your post isn’t clear. You mention EVs penetrating the market – then you are talking new car sales because the market is sales. Then you seem to be bringing up the total vehicle count.
Total vehicle count is one measure but people often keep old cars for low mileage use. So using total vehicle count is not the best. It should be total mileage. People buy electric to use them although old Leafs will probably have a low mileage niche.
Even if the total supply in the US was .02% (it isn’t), my neighbors 3rd car that gets used when kid is home from college is not equal to my DD.

I believe US sales is around 500k cumulative – essentially all in the last 11 years so we can expect 95% to be on the road. 475k/263M = .2%. But that is certainly not the right number to look at.

Market penetration percentage is a good indicator of how EV adoption is going, IMO. I think I meant to write 0.2% btw. It’s 1/5th of 1% EV penetration in the U.S.

I agree that it would be best to look at total miles driven for the different types of vehicles, but are there annual statistics showing total miles vs. the model of car? I doubt it. And how many people actually keep track of how many miles they travel in a year?

My guess is that at best, we might get a survey that asks for odometer readings and what type of car.

It includes all plug in vehicles, as that is what BP is saying, not simply evs, but anything with a plug. The point being that this often quoted point, that the grid can’t support them is B.S.

Definitely B.S., as well as FUD.

Electric utilities are already planning for EV adoption, and in some areas (especially in California) have already started increasing electric supply in response to that.

It’s the job of the electric utilities to respond to increased demand. They already do that in areas where new houses or new commercial/industrial buildings are being put up; why would anyone believe this B.S. that the grid won’t be able to handle lots of EV charging?

So much of anti-EV FUD seems aimed at those who don’t actually think!

EV owners to date have actually also installed enough solar, wind, and battery backup collectively to actually help stabilize the grid. The grid is actually getting stronger due to the collective efforts of green energy supporters and green energy companies.

The grid operators have already said they will have no trouble supporting EVs. In the U.K. they are developing V2G (vehicle to grid) tech so it will actually help the grid.

From what I read, BP predicts 25% p.a increase in EV sales (at least till 2035). That’s their basic scenario and they stick to it. Their “model” is the same as in 2015, 2016 and 2017 energy outlook. The problem is that EV sales growth rate is >50% p.a. So they publish EV energy outlook every year with the same growth rate prediction (25% increase) and they revise their final EV number every year, because real (actual) growth rate is much much higher. That’s just laughable.

Worldwide EV sales nearly quadrupled from 2014 to 2017. BP thinks that the <2-year doubling time will fall dramatically pretty soon. If the doubling time DROPS to 2 years, SALES of EVs will exceed 15% by 2026; with even a 3-year doubling time, SALES of EVs will be well over 15% by 2030. There is no way that market share of EVs will then flatten out – the existing worldwide fleet of cars will obviously consist of greater than 15% EVs by 2040.

This sounds about right to me. Most people don’t give a crap about EVs not to mention EVs only work well for folks who live in the suburbs and can park in a driveway (ideally in a garage). They are terrible vehicles for folks who live in apartments, in big cities, have to park on the street, etc.

The following all have to be true in order for EVs to gain more significant traction:
1) They have to be cheaper than gas cars and without government incentives (which will only last a few more years anyway).
2) The price of gas has to significantly rise
3) The cheapest EVs have to have a range that either matches or exceeds gas cars (i.e. at least 300 miles).
4) You have to be able to charge in the same about of time it takes to fill up a tank of gas.

The whole idea of charging at night and while at work only works for a very small part of the population. I’m very pro EV and hope the day comes when we’re all driving EVs but it’s not going to come by 2040.

As EV prices go down, the apartments/condos will also provide chargers for a price and those people will also buy EVs.

1) Most observers seem to think that crossover point comes in 2022
2) It is already very high in Europe and Japan so it is mostly the US where cheap gas holds back EVs
3) We’re there already with Bolt, Ioniq, and Model 3
4) No – only on long trips. Most people only go to a gas state once every week or two. If you can get 90% of your miles charging overnight at home or at work then a slightly longer charge time when you’re on a long trip is not a big deal.

I do see the end of oil coming by 2040

Don’t underestimate the home charging barrier that many people (like 1/3rd here in the U.S.) will have because they live in apartments etc. It’s not been easy for people to get their landlord to want to put in EV chargers. And I don’t expect landlords to have a bunch more reasons to do so in the coming years, unfortunately.

A tax break, would probably do the job. Or a yearly fine for those that does not comply.
It’s mostly with rules and regulations. In Europe, that takes a lot of time. I guess it is more or less the same in the US.
In Norway the rules and regulations have been forced to speed up, as sales volumes AND the pressure to be green is high
In a apartment complex they install a set numbers of chargers that depends on the numbers of parking spaces. Some install one charger for each parking space, use it to advertice the apartments.

“Don’t underestimate the home charging barrier that many people (like 1/3rd here in the U.S.) will have because they live in apartments etc.”

This is only a short-term problem. Those of us who are old enough (50+) can remember a time in which nobody expected apartment landlords to provide a cable TV hookup. Today, even the poorest neighborhoods in the U.S. offer cable TV hookups in apartment buildings. It won’t be many years until that’s also true for EV chargers in apartment parking lots.

Likewise, it won’t be long until we start seeing EV slow chargers installed in areas where people park overnight on the street. That will either be done by entrepreneurs who see a new business opportunity, or by the electric utilities looking for a new source of revenue, or both.

Ha ha – BP, you will be surprised
ICE will be less than 15% by 2040 !

I would love to see the real report that only the execs would see. This is just like the tobacco companies withholding reports of nicotine being addictive. They do have a vested interest to shade the truth from their shareholders.

BP is in the EV charging game.

Broncobet is a well known big fat liar on another popular EV site.

My projection same as in 2016: >600mn #EVs on roads in 2030
Ramp up of electric cars is in the next decade,
not a decade from now
BP are mostly wrong

Time to do math people. If you are not algebra fluent, just make a table listing your numbers then add them up. 2017 at 1.2 million worldwide and list how many cars sold each year until 2040. What is needed to get to 300 million? 600 million? I’ll start with an example. cars = 1.2 Million * 1.25*cars – 25% growth rate every year. The second set of numbers is with a 10% growth rate.
Moral of the story: it takes time even at a 25% uninterrupted rate.

Annual production:
1.2 M cars – 2017
2.3 – 2020 6.9 M EV cars cumulative total
21.8 – 2030 104 M EV cars cumulative total
66.6 -2035 318 M EV cars cumulative for the last 15 yrs
203 -2040 971 M EV cars cumulative for the last 15 yrs

Or assume a 10% increase every year starting at 1.2 Million world wide in 2020.
1.2 – 2017
1.6 – 2020 5.6 M total EV cars
4.1 – 2030 34 M total EVcars
6.7 – 2035 54 M total EVcars (only count last 15 yrs)
10.7 – 2040 87 M total EVcars (only count last 15 yrs)

Meant to say that # cars produced in the next year = 1.25 * the cars produced in the previous year, if the growth rate is 25% per year

You applied a 25% increase. Please apply a 40 increase and then see for yourself.

2016 – 750,000
2017 – 1,200,000

That’s actually a 60% increase. Will be better if you use 60% instead of 40%.

40% annual increase in “Market Share” is about right over the last 7 years. That means a doubling of market share every 2 years. I can’t show the diagram but if you plot it you get 100% of all new cars sold by 2030 will be EV.

more here:

But what’s the scrap rate of EV compared to ICE? That’s unknown variable over time. Unless replacement battery costs come way way down , I would think EV’s with bad batteries get scrapped sooner than ICE cars with bad engines. Only time will tell.

$2700 for a refurbished Leaf battery in Japan, or less than the price of two years worth of gas.

On average over time with regular maintenance evs are much better. Now the Leaf brought down the curve with it’s earlier model, as the batteries, both chemistry and cooling components were inferior.

Being that we are in the early phases of the changeover to evs there will be manufacturing mistakes that affect a vehicles life or more maintenance than will eventually take place. Things improve.
Tesla’s early motor problems, where many drive units were replaced, is an example.

The other factor is that all cars share similar components, enough will eventually fail or wear out, deteriorate, as to make it uneconomical to fix, since ice vehicles have many, many, more components to fail, it’s really just simple logic to project that they will be less reliable than evs over time. More things to go wrong.

This is also being borne out in the real world as I type, if you wish to make an effort to look into the subject.
My suspicion is that you won’t.

We actually already know the answer to this, because we’ve already had battery powered cars since the late 1990’s. We are already at the two decade point for battery powered hybrids. We heard all the same doom and gloom about them, and despite all the noise the battery packs have not been a significant problem. Rebuilt and used battery packs have been the norm, the same way rebuilt and used transmissions and engines are the norm for used ICE cars.

Your brand of Concern Trolling is so old and boring that I’m surprised anybody even bothers repeating it anymore. Are you too dumb to know for yourself how silly you sound, or do you think everybody is dumb and won’t see how intentionally ignorant your posts are.

PS — Welcome back from being banned.

BP just copy & paste the same bluff for the last 7 years. They never predicted the rise of plugins in the 1st place.

Their prediction of just 2 billion vehicle by 2040 is a big blunder. Already 1.4 billion vehicles are there on World’s roads and the 2 billion mark will be reached in 2025 itself. Their whole aim is to make people think that demand for oil will increase only slowly so that people don’t think of alternatives. And when it suddenly increases, bp will make big profits.

With battery prices below $200/KWh and declining rapidly, we are going to see the launch of more affordable EV’s soon. BAIC EC-180 is already a big seller in China.

Let’s take Nissan Leaf: In 2011 it was launched at $33K price tag for a 84 mile range, now it has $30K price tag for 150 mile range. Don’t you see a near doubling of range with lesser price. And when Model-3 sales ramp up, other automakers will follow suit with more EVs and lets what what prediction BP makes in 2020.

BP makes profits by charging BEV’s and of course they make billions selling the natural gas which makes the current for everything including BEV’s.
With zero petrol used for transport there still is massive use of petroleum.Between now and 2040 there will be increased use of oil and by 2040 there should be at least slightly less supply, so even with decreased demand with a decreased supply prices would do well.

Broncobet is a well known big fat liar on another popular EV site.

It’s the price of improving the website, suddenly it becomes more appealing to those that aren’t.

Not really. Your conjecture that there will massive rise in demand for products made from oil does not square with the facts. That demand is static or falling. While it’s true we will always consume oil, for things other than vehicles, alternatives are being sought to replace it.
For instance biodegradable plastics made from plant material.
Additionally less electricity will be generated by burning fossil fuels as more and more wind, solar, installations replace them. This will take quite a long time, especially in the case of natural gas, which is a bridge fuel, but even there we have ng for centuries, so no price pressure there.
Besides that there are efforts to increase efficiencies in gasoline, which will, if successful increase fuel efficiency, as governments worldwide are demanding, and on a strict schedule in some countries.
Couple that with the fact that many major cities are outright banning ice from their roads, and it would seem your ideas/beliefs are counter to what is already in the process of actually happening..
The 2040 world BP projects is and oil-mans fantasy.

“With zero petrol used for transport there still is massive use of petroleum.”

Well, obviously “massive” is a subjective valuation, and not really meaningful in this context.

I think I’ve read that 70% of petroleum is used as fuel. It’s true that there is a large remaining market, using petroleum for manufacture of such things as plastics and lubricants. But no company would be happy at facing a 70% drop in its market! Make no mistake: The EV revolution is going to put several Big Oil companies out of business, and leave most or all of the rest rather shrunken, and much, much less influential than they are today.

I very much look forward to that happening! Big Oil is using its obscene levels of wealth to prop up despotic regimes around the world, and using much of those profits to fund corruption and bribery in the U.S. and other countries. That’s common at the State level as well as in the U.S. Congress.

I’m not sure the 2 billion number is wrong. Well it could be, but I think it could even be on the high side. The reason is China is quickly going to run into a hard wall where the car transportation model basically fails. There are too many people in China, all clustered together into megacities. The car just won’t work there as the dominant form of transportation in that situation. It’s going to be LA but 10 times–maybe 50 times–worse.

Oil companies don’t want to believe it and car manufacturers don’t want to believe it, but car sales there are going to peak and then decline in the near future.

Think about how many (few) people rely on cars to get around NYC. Having a car there is basically more hassle than it’s worth. And that goes for a lot of densely populated cities, all of which have only a fraction of the population of China’s megacities.

People do use cars to get around there; those cars are called “taxis”. The problem isn’t so much that there are so many cars on the streets that you can’t get anywhere; the problem in NYC is there is no place to park. However, third-world countries have bigger problems with traffic in the streets. They have a lot of pedestrians, street vendors, and low-speed vehicles such as bicycles, motor scooters, and the like. That is the problem which is likely going to lead to significantly increased use of mass transit in the Chinese megacities. You may be entirely correct to say that use of personal automobiles is going to decline in large cities. But much of the U.S. isn’t comprised of large cities. Overall, the U.S. has a much lower population density (86 per square mile) than Western Europe (UK, 702; Germany, 598), or Japan (868) , or India (1049), or China (374). Oh, and for our Canadian cousins, population density is 10 per square mile… no offense! 🙂 Yes, we will probably see a future decline in passenger cars in megacities, at least on a per-capita basis altho perhaps not in total numbers. But in the rest of the… Read more »

I hope they are wrong. Air quality in bigger cities needs large no of EVs on the streets and it needs that quickly. 15% in 2040 is a terribly low number.

By far the best way to improve air quality is the congestion charge, but BEV only in cities also makes sense, at some point in the future.

Broncobet is a well known big fat liar on another popular EV site.

There is a big change in the fuel marketplace itself.
Big-3 automakers in US are pushing for a single standard of RON 95 instead of 3 standards: 87-Regular, 91-Midlevel and 93-Premium.

This will help them make better engines that are 3% more fuel efficient and also can design just 1 engine which will be in sync with Europe as well. So basically they want to design just 1 engine for 2 markets (US & EU) instead of the current 4.

And they can put more effort on electrification.

Cant belive you still have 87 Standard. We have 95 normally in europe, some still 92, some need 98.

While there is a big talk about electrification, the hybridization is also accelerating.

Last year 2 million hybrid vehicles were sold Worldwide. And Nissan also has increased it’s hybrid sales with their eNote (Serial Hybrid) which gets a mileage as good as Parallel Hybrid.

Nissan sold 174,419 e-Power models.


As the Plugins (EV + PHV) sales are 1.2 million last year and growing rapidly, Toyota would like to accelerate hybrid sales because they still maintain that hybrids can do more to reduce pollution.

A hybrid can go 40 – 50 % extra distance compared to gasmobile.
Seems bp has ignore this fact.

If i go by average fuel economy my Parents changes from a big (european) car to a medium sizede european one. They reduced fuel from 7l/100km to 5 l/100km. This is far below 40-50%. They reduced by 30%, but the smaller Car already saved 0,5-1l/100km. So it’s more Like 15-20% saving due to hybrid.

One other factor not considered here is that the total number of cars per person should drastically drop once self driving happens. I would be shocked if that didn’t happen by 2030. What are the stats? Cars go unused 90% of the time. I think that means driving hours vs parked hours. The need for a car is already dropping among city dwellers. I don’t know how that plays out in the numbers, but it should mean that overall car sales will decrease, and the models without self driving should be retired earlier.

People buy passenger cars so they will be able to go anywhere they need to go at any time, even on a moment’s notice. Generally speaking, “ride sharing” using self-driving cars will merely mean replacing Uber cars driven by humans with Uber cars driven by robots. People who don’t now depend on taxis (Uber or otherwise) to get where they are going, are not suddenly going to start doing so just because the taxis have robot drivers!

This is just BP trying to negatively impact the perception of the rate of adoption or desirability of EVs, in an attempt to hold on to as many gasoline customers as long as possible.

Automakers do the same when they are slow to build whats trending as the next hot thing. They claim sedans are dying, unless they have a new one to launch. They claim compact cars are dying unless they are launching a new compact car. They claim everyone wants’s a SUV as long as they can get $5k to $7k premium over the sedan riding on the same platform.

But what they are banking on is consumer behavior who tend to buy what they see others buying….even if it’s not a good fit for what they need. Sheeple are funny.

Also, I don’t think BP is taking into account the number of new EVs hitting the market from 2018 – 2025 specifically.

The problem with their estimate is that they are not considering any technological breakthroughs for electric cars. Current electric cars are not yet competitive, but in 10 years they will eat ICE for breakfast and lunch.

Kodak syndrome…

Looks like they wrote 2024 wrong.

Considering how many 2nd and 3rd world nations really don’t have the kind of electric grid needed to support EV’s, I’d say that global number would indeed be lower than 1st world numbers, dragging down the global averages. I would expect the first world numbers will be higher.

Is anyone surprised that a Big Oil company is in denial about the EV revolution?

They’re whistling past the graveyard.

From the BP outlook:

“A key uncertainty surrounding the prospects for oil demand is the speed with which sales of electric cars increase over the Outlook. This depends on a number of factors, including government policy, technological improvements and social preferences, and as such is hard to predict with any certainty.
• To gauge the significance of this uncertainty, consider an alternative scenario in which governments impose a worldwide ban on the sale of all ICE (and PHEVs) cars from 2040 onwards, with the regulations gradually increasing, such that around a third of all cars sales in 2030 are BEVs, two thirds in 2035 and 100% in 2040.
• Under this alternative ‘ICE ban’ scenario, electricity powers around 20% of total passenger car Vkm in 2030 and two-thirds in 2040. This compares with nearly 15% and 30%, respectively, in the ET scenario.”

Huge amounts of guesstimating going on here, so you can whistle whatever tune you like …. even WHILE you’re reading the latest BP outlook.

They literally took exponential growth and flattened it into linear growth in the hopes that would somehow make it true!