Slashdot Mirror
Electric Car Battery Prices Fell By 80% In the Last 7 Years, Says Study (electrek.co)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Electrek: A new study published this month by McKinsey and Company looks into how automakers can move past producing EVs as compliance cars and "drive electrified vehicle sales and profitability." Unsurprisingly, it describes battery economics as an important barrier to profitability and though the research firm sees a path to automakers making a profit selling electric vehicles as battery costs fall, it doesn't see that happening for "the next two to three product cycles" -- or between 2025 and 2030. That's despite battery costs falling from ~1,000 per kWh in 2010 to ~$227 per kWh in 2016, according to McKinsey. The company wrote in the report: "Despite that drop, battery costs continue to make EVs more costly than comparable ICE-powered variants. Current projections put EV battery pack prices below $190/kWh by the end of the decade, and suggest the potential for pack prices to fall below $100/kWh by 2030." Automakers capable of staying ahead of that cost trend will be able to achieve higher margins and possible profits on electric vehicle sales sooner. Tesla is among the automakers staying ahead of the trend. While McKinsey projects that battery pack prices will be below $190/kWh by the end of the decade, Tesla claims to be below $190/kWh since early 2016. That's how the automaker manages to achieve close to 30% gross margin on its flagship electric sedan, the Model S. Tesla aims to reduce the price of its batteries by another 30% ahead of the Model 3 with the new 2170 cells in production at the Gigafactory in Nevada. It should enable a $35,000 price tag for a vehicle with a range of over 200 miles, but McKinsey sees $100/kWh as the target for "true price parity with ICE vehicles (without incentives)": "Given current system costs and pricing ability within certain segments, companies that offer EVs face the near-term prospect of losing money with each sale. Under a range of scenarios for future battery cost reductions, cars in the C/D segment in the US might not reach true price parity with ICE vehicles (without incentives) until between 2025 and 2030, when battery pack costs fall below $100/kWh, creating financial headwinds for automakers for the next two to three product cycles." UPDATE 2/3/17: We have changed the source to Electrek and quoted McKinsey and Company -- the company that conducted the study.
start that diy project on some modded sports car...
"produced at 227 kWh per kWh in 2010"
"will be $ 190 per kWh and $ 20 per kWh less than $ 100 per kWh"
wtf?
> we can see that the same batteries can be produced at 227 kWh per kWh in 2010...
And it's in the original article, too. Someone needs a new editor...
As in forever recently, too stupidly expensive. Opened one up? 9x1V.
I think this will do a major impact on battery sales. Due to use of electric and hybrid cars batteries are more consuming in these cars, so car companies have to minimize the costing of batteries. Some cars use battery more when person put car on neutral of off the engine. Their is other devices included in cars which use battery powers 24 hours. like head lights sensors, doors, and meters, Vehicle Tracking System etc.,
God, is it so hard to write:
"In 2010 an electric car battery cost $x per kWh and usually had capacity y kWh, and by 2020 this will be $x' and y'."
$100 per kw hour is $3,000 for a Nissan Leaf battery. Is that production or retail? If the expected battery lifetime is 8-10 years then that is a lot to spend on an old vehicle
It's starting to look as if electric cars and clean energy may actually be manage to kill off the fossil fuel industry in the foreseeable future. Will not be shedding any tears when that happens. This would also explain why Trump is in such a hurry to eradicate the EPA. If the price of clean energy keeps falling, eventually the only way Oil and Coal will be able to compete is if they do not have to respect any environmental legislation and the Trump admin fixes it so that they can pollute at will. Once the price of clean energy and electric vehicles falls below even the prices they can offer under those circumstances Oil and Coal will be in trouble. But then again who knows, maybe we will actually see numbers rivalling the women's march hitting the streets to protest the murder of the EPA in which case this may happen even sooner.
You can get 18650 as cheap as USD 1.5 in retail quantities
A mid-sized OEM can buy them at 0.6~0.7
Big ones at "material cost + 10%"
If Tesla sized company buys them at $1 and they get them rated at 3.0 mAh. 1 kwH costs them $90
Big, prismatic LiFePo cells are cheaper than li-ion.
You can buy a 1kwH module made from them for the same $200 with all protection, load balancing circuitry, and cooling ports.
http://m.1688.com/offer/527488...
....why are electric cars still ridiculously expensive? For most of the models on the market I can get two or even three gas powered cars. Sure, there probably is a difference in the cost of operation, but the biggest hurdle is the initial cost....which is why I drive a 15 year old car, although it only has 61000 miles on it. I rarely drive more than about 15 miles a day, I'd be the perfect candidate for an EV, but an EV costs as much as a house in this region.
bejezwax? Try finding some! I've lost a lot of mind, too much obviously, and I don't know where to get more. Or do I.
Oh for fuck's sake, the 18650s you can buy dirt-cheap from China are manufacturing rejects. The only reason they exist is because companies like Tesla buy up all the good ones at the prices Kinsey is talking about. The cheap ones that say 3.0mAh do not deliver 3.0mAh, or anything even close.
Besides, fuel cells are the future. Batteries are a slow to recharge, fragile, volatile, resource-hungry, ridiculously expensive stop-gap, no matter how much you mix units and confuse the summary.
Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
I'm guessing you meant 3000mAh anyway.
the only way Oil and Coal will be able to compete is if they do not have to respect any environmental legislation and the Trump admin fixes it so that they can pollute at will.
Passing the costs onto the taxpayer. Cleanup, medical, and other costs will be paid by the taxpayer and other industries have to deal with the pollution while the producers walk away with the profits.
Socialize the cost; privatize the profits.
Trump has removed some of the restrictions on dumping coal mining waste. Mitch McConnell is happier than a pig in shit since he's on the coal industry's payroll.
But will is "save" coal? Nope. Because of economics. But that doesn't matter because those "evil gubberment regulations" are being cast aside.
In the meantime, all those streams and rivers will get destroyed and polluted and the people around them will get sick. And guess who pays for that in the end?
How's that swamp draining coming?
i give this post a solid 5/7..... per kwh.... per kwh in 2010
*3 Ah
It's starting to look as if electric cars and clean energy may actually be manage to kill off the fossil fuel industry in the foreseeable future
I suppose that depends on what your definition of "foreseeable" is. Quite frankly I don't see it happening during my lifetime and according to actuarial tables I probably have around another 30-40 years left.
Here is what I I do see as possibilities/likelihoods within the next 40 years. Politics could obviously interfere with any/all of this
1) Hybrid and electric cars take major amounts of market share. They won't eliminate internal combustion engines but they will substantially mitigate their impact. If charge times can be made less than 10-15 minutes, electric vehicles will dominate market share in passenger vehicles. Luxury cars will mostly be hybrids within 10-15 years and the technology will trickle down from there.
2) Solar roofs will become a thing on high end houses and many commercial buildings. (added benefit of greater system reliability)
3) Wind farms and industrial scale solar become an increasingly important part of our energy portfolio. Probably not the majority but 30%+ is realistic. 50%+ is possible.
4) Batteries and power storage systems will improve significantly and solar/wind as well as transport will benefit in proportion.
5) Coal will remain expensive as long as natural gas is plentiful from fracking but coal will remain a large % of the US and Chinese energy portfolios due to the abundant amounts available in those two countries.
6) Oil and gas based fuels will continue to play a dominant role in our energy portfolios for at least another 30-40 years. Exact percent unclear but big number without question.
Things that could accelerate matters? Widespread adoption of carbon taxes. Removal of subsidies from fossil fuel industry. Appropriate levels of taxation on diesel/gasoline fuels commensurate with their environmental impact. Subsidies of renewable energy technology development. Continued increases in requirements to filter fossil fuel emissions and increased fuel economy standards. I wouldn't necessarily expect any of these but any or all of them would help.
The big obstacle? Politics. The fossil fuel industry has almost endless piles of money and politicians in their pockets. That's going to continue to be a real problem.
Are you trying to duplicate the "barely-comprehensible" style of the summary in your post ?
That was way more understandable the the gibberish in the summary. I'd guess this guy just isn't a native English speaker. His word choices were a little off, but him message came across just fine.
Seems this Soros guy is a nice chap. At last someone spending his money responsibly. Even Breitbart has to concur.
Thanks, Soros!
Wtf Trump has to do with this?
Let me count the ways... How about we cover the most basic reasons he is relevant? He's president of one of the largest energy producing and energy consuming countries in the world. He has stated point blank that he thinks climate change is a hoax and that he wants to roll back regulations on fossil fuel emissions. He has significant personal investments in the oil and gas companies. Fossil fuel companies have a direct interest in preventing electric vehicles (and renewable energy) from becoming a thing because it hurts them economically.
So we have a president with a clear and obvious conflict of interest due to investments in oil and gas companies who has every reason (philosophic and economic) to oppose further development of electric vehicles and related technologies if they hurt the fossil fuel industry.
What good will it do to drive an electric car if it's charged by electricity produced from a coal fired power plant? It makes a person feel like they're helping the environment even if the electricity that charges the car isn't from a renewable energy source. Feeling like you're helping the environment doesn't really help if in actuality it really isn't making any difference.
mm, if true then the latest buyers of battery cars are being ripped off.
And the year after, better still
etc.
It is only at the point when a buyer will spend less on buying and running an EV over its lifetime, than the person would spend on buying and running a car that uses petrol or diesel that it makes economic sense.
The next question would be that if your intention is to "save the planet", would the cost difference be better spent on an EV or by being donated to one of the causes advocating less climate change?
(Of course, there is a third reason: to be able to brag look at me, I've got an electric car! Aren't I trendy / environmentally responsible / rich)
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Besides, fuel cells are the future
On what planet? Certainly not this one. Baring some miracle technological breakthrough not in my lifetime either.
Batteries are a slow to recharge, fragile, volatile, resource-hungry, ridiculously expensive stop-gap, no matter how much you mix units and confuse the summary.
And fuel cells utterly lack a fueling infrastructure, have no standardized fuel type, are not currently commercially viable on a large scale. The only people who think fuel cells are "the future" are geeks who aren't looking at the big picture. Fuel cells are useful but they have some show stopper problems relating to fuel that prevent them from becoming a replacement for either gas/diesel engines or battery powered electric cars.
You claim that batteries are "slow to recharge, fragile, volatile, resource hungry and ridiculously expensive"? I could say almost exactly the same about gasoline/diesel and fuel cells. Slow to recharge I'll grant you - for now at least. "Fragile" is complete nonsense unsupported by facts. Batteries are not meaningfully more fragile than the alternatives. Gasoline and hydrogen are both quite volatile last I checked. If you think fossil fuels aren't resource hungry then you are utterly clueless. Have you actually seen a drilling operation? Or a refinery? Resource hungry is a gross understatement. As for ridiculously expensive, do you think the other options are cheap? The only reason gasoline is cheap is because we allow it to heavily pollute and don't require payment for the cleanup. Fuel cells are FAR more expensive than either gasoline or batteries currently and show no sign of changing that calculus any time soon.
Saying "climate-changing carbon-emissions-rich gasoline and diesel vehicles" is not correct. E.g. here in UK the entire Tesla range emits at least 20% greater CO2/km than a new 1.4l or is some cases even 1.6l TDCI diesel.
As emitted CO2/kwh decreases (it has decreased by around 15% over the past 10 years, mainly as a result of gradual coal phaseout), then electric cars may break even with good diesel, but this will take a long time. We have already replaced almost all of our coal with combined cycle gas turbine, and this has made the vast majority of the difference in CO2/kwh. It will take over a decade for renewable and new nuclear to get CO2/kwh down another 20%, enough time for most people to get lower CO2 emissions by buy another generation of petrol or diesel (which is still improving in efficiency too).
King Oil! Death to the EPA!
Picking nits, but 48x20 != 1000. Close, but not quite.
No number for Leaf.
Current Renault Zoé (based on the same platform, but a Renault Clio body bolted on it) :
41kWh :
- costs ~9'000$ approx when you decide to buy the battery with the car (as opposed to rent one)
- costs ~15'000$ if you decide to buy a new one later on (because you initially opted renting one instead).
According to the summary : that battery would cost ~4100$ approx to built.
(Given that the company need to recoup its R&D costs, and the various subcontractors making the batteries (LG Chem, Imecar, Kreisel Electric, etc.) are all building their own equivalent of a megafactory in Europe, the price might seem seems legit).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
The writing is horrible, but we are all closer to owning electric cars.
I for one welcome our new Google Translate copy-paste overlords.
Hopefully, their 10 per 1000 USD kilowatt is good for 2010 for 2015 in two years per total capacity.
Point of order? Wouldn't it be "fission and fusion plants", as both are nuclear plants?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I award you one furlong per forthright.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
o The vehicle is inherently power source agnostic.
o The vehicle changes power source based on the area it is in when it charges.
o An EV uses energy more efficiently than an ICEV.
o It's easier and more efficient to reduce pollution at one power plant than to upgrade/alter/replace large numbers of polluting vehicles. Coal plant pollution is highly accessible for pollution control. There are post-combustion products and ash. Both can be approached; while the EV produces zero additional distributed pollution itself.
o More non-coal power is coming online in many areas. You can already supplement whatever source is feeding power to your home with wind and solar. But this is unlikely to change anything about the coal plant, because...
o How you charge your car is extremely unlikely to change the coal plant's output. You're just using more of what is being produced if you charge from its output. The typical coal plant runs at a very steady rate; it takes a lot of time to fire up a coal fueled generator, so coal plants can't respond to power grid variations quickly. So they run at a capacity able to deliver what might be needed all the time. They don't generally sit there with idle generators, either. And if they can, that means the area is getting power from elsewhere to take up the slack, and that may very well be from sources other than coal.
o If you have an ICEV, your pollution footprint is fixed by your unbreakable link to the petroleum industry for the service life of the vehicle and/or the time you own it, whichever is shorter. But if you have an EV, the instant that coal plant is supplemented or replaced by a less polluting source (which is almost anything, coal plants are not great), your pollution footprint becomes smaller.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Despite news of falling prices, the cost of the prismatic LiFePO4 cells commonly used in roll-your-own EV conversions has not come down AT ALL. They're still $1.30-1.40/Ah, or about $410-440/kWh, the same as they were in 2010. So a pack for a usable vehicle is still at least $10K. Sad to say, it's now much cheaper to buy a used EV than to build one.
Most people don't drive enough for cheaper electricity vs gasoline to overpower interest rates, and car aging.
From 2010 to 2016, battery pack prices fell roughly 80% from ~$1,000/kWh to ~$227/kWh
From 2013 to 2017, ranges of EVs have increased. The Nissan Leaf went from 75mi to 107mi, and the Tesla Model S went from 208mi to 249mi. This is mostly due to bigger battery packs (24kWh --> 30kWh and 60kWh --> 75kWh respectively).
In 2016, the battery pack cost is still ~$227/kWh, meaning that a 60kWh Tesla battery pack is ~$13600. The target cost for parity with ICE vehicles is $100/kWh, which is likely to happen sometime between 2025 and 2030.
(((dB)))
How much do these batteries harm the environment? https://www.google.gr/#q=elon+musk+chemicals+batteries+environmental+damage
Excellent! In warm countries will probably be more in demand
Lithium is the 2nd most abundant alkali metal on the planet, right next to sodium. It's easy to recycle, as long as we choose to do so. Same goes for lead acid batteries, which have been in widespread use for a few generations now.
Coal power plants have issues with cadmium, mercury, and other heavy metals.
Fortunately, emissions at a power plant aren't driving around, heating up, cooling down and idling at stop lights, and are amenable to all sorts of interesting, and in developed countries, mandated emissions scrubbing technology, which works quite a bit better than your car's catalytic converter.
The coal & gas industry and auto industry would really prefer to keep taking profits from existing technology _forever_ - that's the way the short-sighted American corporate machine works - invest minimally, extract maximum profits. Silicon Valley was founded on slightly different principles in that 'profit' was once defined as the creation and ownership of new technology and unique capability stemming from teams of competent specialists. It's good to see the latter ideal still has some influence.
My advice to you: let it go. The disruptive technology is already here. It's not going away, no matter how many paid trolls try to cling to the past.
"Every time I see an adult on a bicycle, I no longer despair for the future of the human race." - H. G. Wells
They are. The Volt's base price has dropped from the mid 40's to about $33k. With more EV range. The current Leaf's price has also dropped, in spite of a capacity increase from 24 kWh to 30 kWh in the base model.
And the Bolt EV, with a net MSRP under $30k and 200+ miles of range, would not have been possible a few years ago. Soon the Model 3 will join it.
Very little, compared to extracting fossil fuels (fracking, strip mining etc.).
All manufacturing requires energy, resources and may pollute. It doesn't matter what you are making. Recycling helps. Just look at the pollution caused by discarding electronics, which is far higher in volume than discarded batteries.
The question is moot unless you are willing to stop buying manufactured goods. Lithium batteries are no different.
Elon Musk surely uses the latest filter technology at the factories.
The title of TFS was "electric batteries decreased by 80% in 7 years". That's a 20% reduction per year, or ~10x every 10 years. So, if we stay on that trend then we'll see 20$/kWh in 2027 (probably a little optimistic).
> $1000 in 2050? (all using 2017 dollars) That suggests to me that electric vehicles really might be cost competetive with pure ICE in 20 or 30 or 40 years.
Why would the battery cost have to get down to $1K to be cost-competitive with gas cars? $5K would be fine for most cars, since the electric motors and whatnot really don't cost that much.
it has nothing to do with the chinese batteries. Even now, Panasonic and Tesla cells are MUCH MUCH cheaper than anything out of China.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Self driving cars will increase adoption of electric cars. Currently, the range is limited due to high cost of battery and very few fast charging stations are there. Imagine your office is 30 miles commute and charging station is 0.5 mile away from your office. You can't use cheap electric cars with 75-80 miles range. But if these are self driving, then you just get down at your office and the car will go to charging station and park itself.
It is also possible that self driving cars will make taxis cheaper than owning cars and most people will get rid of cars and use taxis (or at least have only 1 owned car per family). The self driving cars or taxis will charge batteries overnight, drive people during peak hours, charge around noon and drive back in evening.
So the future is electric cars even at current battery prices.
the autism-hating, custom EpiPen-hating, Musk-hating Slashdot troll!