Abstract
Alternative vehicles should ideally cost no more than the conventional gasoline vehicles to speed market acceptance. While new technology vehicles will initially cost more, the goal should be to have equal or lower cost in the long term when these alternative vehicles are mass produced. This chapter summarizes a bottom-up assessment of alternative vehicle costs and also reviews two major studies of the likely mass production costs of alternative vehicles: one by Kromer and Heywood at MIT, and the other by the consulting firm McKinsey & Company.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Batteries should not be completely discharged; the useful life of the battery decreases rapidly with increased depth of discharge.
- 2.
This work originated at Directed Technologies, Inc. in the mid-1990s under contract to the Ford Motor Company, whose main costing analyst taught James and his team the Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) methodology of Boothroyd Dewhurst, Inc. DTI was subsequently acquired by Strategic Analysis, Inc., where James and his team continue their detailed assessment of fuel cell costs for the Department of Energy.
- 3.
In Appendix E, we do include a markup to reflect prices for a stationary fuel cell system, since we are using prices for other equipment in that appendix.
- 4.
1 kg of hydrogen has an energy content of approximately 33.31 kWh (lower heating value).
- 5.
Actually, other components of the BEV will be heavier and costly more as the range increases. Thus, the BEV body, the suspension system, the brakes will all have to become larger and more costly as the BEV mass grows with range, but estimating the cost of these vehicle components affected by mass compounding was beyond the scope of this book.
- 6.
BMW, Daimler, Ford, GM, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Nissan, Renault, Toyota, and Volkswagen.
References
L. Gaines & R. Cuenca, “Costs of Li-Ion Batteries for Vehicles,” Report # ANL/ESD-42, Argonne National Laboratory, May 2000.
D. Anderson, “An Evaluation of current and future cost for Lithium-Ion batteries for use in electrified vehicle powertrains,” Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, May 2009.
R. Hensley, J. Newman & M. Rogers, “Battery Technology Charges Ahead,” McKinsey & Company, July, 2012, available at: http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/energy_resources_materials/battery_technology_charges_ahead
M. Kromer & J. Heywood, “Electric power train opportunities and challenges for the U.S. light-duty vehicle fleet,” Sloan Automotive Laboratory, Laboratory for Energy and Environment, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Report # LFEE 2007-03XP, May 2007, available at: http://web.mit.edu/sloan-auto-lab/research/beforeh2/files/kromer_electric_powertrains.pdf
B. D. James, “Fuel Cell Transportation Cost Analysis, Strategic Analysis, Inc., available at: http://www.sainc.com/service/SA%202011%20Update%20of%20Cost%20Analysis%20of%20Light%20Duty%20Automobile%20Fuel%20Cell%20Power%20Systems.pdf
McKinsey & Company, “A Portfolio of Power-Train options for Europe: a fact-based analysis: the role of battery electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids, and fuel cell electric vehicles,” undated. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/fch/pdf/a_portfolio_of_power_trains_for_europe_a_fact_based__analysis.pdf
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Thomas, C.E.(. (2015). Alternative Vehicle Cost Estimates. In: Sustainable Transportation Options for the 21st Century and Beyond. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16832-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16832-6_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-16831-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-16832-6
eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)