« Delphi to Sell Global Exhaust Business | Main | Audi A4 2.0 TDI Efficiency Marathon Shows Fuel Consumption of 3.44-3.65 L/100 km (64-68 mpg US) »
International Study Shows Global Gains in Consideration of Hybrid and Electric Vehicles
27 June 2008
 |
| 1st International Continental Hybrid Survey: Consumer acceptance of Electric Cars. Click to enlarge. |
Electric cars and vehicles with hybrid drive are generating strong interest among motorists worldwide, according to a survey commissioned by international automotive supplier Continental. A total of 36.0% of those surveyed were willing to buy a car with hybrid drive while 45.8% were interested in purchasing an electric car. Environmental considerations and increasing fuel prices were equally important motivators.
At the beginning of this year, TNS/Infratest surveyed approximately 1,000 motorists each in China, Germany, France, UK, Japan, Austria, Switzerland and the USA (8,058 motorists total) on behalf of Continental AG. The study focused on the motorists’ current state of knowledge and opinions of hybrid drive systems, their driving styles and their views on battery-powered cars.
This trend holds great potential for us as an automotive supplier and provider of environmentally-friendly drive technologies.
—Dr. Karl-Thomas Neumann, Executive Board member and Chief Technology Officer of Continental AG
Worldwide, 45% of all motorists reported that increasing fuel prices have forced them to change their driving behavior to lower their fuel consumption. At 62.6%, the Japanese have changed their driving behavior the most in response to higher diesel and gasoline prices, followed by Germans at 55.2%. The figure among Americans was 42.8%. The exceptions to this were the British and the Chinese, with 60% of the first and 48.9% of the second not adjusting their driving behavior at all, even when faced with increasing fuel costs.
The upward trend in fuel prices is feeding greater interest in alternative drive systems, but the study indicates that awareness of such systems varies greatly around the world. About one in five motorists thinks immediately of hybrid drives. This type of drive is best-known among the Japanese at 46.9%. Only 6.6% of Americans and only 3.9% of the British are familiar with the hybrid drive, according to the survey.
With an average recognition of 16.8%, the pure electric drive comes in second. Austrians and French at 33.3% and 31.7%, respectively, mentioned this variant even more frequently than the hybrid drive. Further fuel-efficient drive systems are diesel (14.1%) and cars powered by natural gas (11.4%). Fully 81.7% of the Chinese knew nothing of fuel-efficient drives.
When asked what they associate with hybrid technologies and hybrid drives, more than one-third (36.4%) of motorists state that the drives are a combination of electric and combustion engines. One in five referenced environmental and economic factors.
Hybrid drives present significant savings potential, especially in urban traffic, where the vast majority of motorists can be found each day: 85.7% of motorists travel less than 30,000 kilometers (18,641 miles) a year, more than two thirds (69%) primarily in urban traffic. In Japan, 63.7% of motorists stated that they drive less than 10,000 kilometers (6,200 miles) per year, of which 63.7% were on short routes or in urban traffic.
A total of 36% of respondents are definitely interested and very likely to purchase a vehicle with hybrid drive. Respondents in high-growth coastal regions of China were even more enthused: After the technology is explained, more than half of Chinese motorists (53.8%) can imagine purchasing a hybrid vehicle. Only 27.4% of Germans were prepared to make such a purchase decision. A majority of motorists would be interested, though, if the government provides tax incentives for the purchase of hybrid vehicles. More than half of the respondents (64.2%) would then consider purchasing a hybrid car. These incentives are even more decisive for Germans (66.6%), Austrians (67.6%) and British (69.6%).
Thus far, more than half of international motorists (58.1%) assume that environmentally friendly hybrid drives have higher purchase costs compared to conventional cars. French assume an average of €4,651 in additional costs, but they also expect the greatest reduction in cost at €4,411. Americans, in contrast, believe the purchase price to be €2,801 above that of conventional vehicles and expect cost savings of around €2,364. An average of 50.8% of motorists are not prepared to pay more for a hybrid vehicle. The other half could envision investing up to €2,781 in a more environmentally friendly vehicle. [€1 = US$1.58]
The study also shows that attractive purchase costs are the strongest argument in favor of hybrid vehicles for 63.5% of respondents. 8 of 10 Japanese motorists (82.6%) even consider this the most important purchase criterion.
The environment is the second most-important factor for most Europeans. Except for a minority of respondents, Asians, Americans and British, in contrast, do not focus on this issue.
When asked about the most interesting type of hybrid drive, motorists cited the lower fuel consumption on hybrid vehicles as the decisive criterion. 37.9% would opt for a hybrid with lower fuel consumption and acceleration that is the same or better than conventional engines. More than half of all motorists assume that the purchase of a hybrid vehicle pays off after around three years.
Americans surprised me on this point: 53.9 percent of respondents assume the purchase would pay off after just two years. The results for the French were also interesting because 28.5 percent believed that the environmental and climate protection benefits of hybrid vehicles are more important than the reduced fuel costs.
—Dr. Neumann
The fast pace of development in lithium-ion battery technology is leading to increased interest in electric cars. Almost half of all motorists (45.8%) could “definitely,” “very likely” or “somewhat likely” envision buying a car designed for urban traffic that runs exclusively on battery power and produces no emissions at all.
The Swiss, Austrians and Germans all had average findings on this issue. The Chinese motorists were very positive on this approach. Three-quarters—73.4%—have a very positive impression of this type of alternative drive, due presumably in part to its potential to reduce increasingly severe air pollution in their cities.
Continental will separately publish detailed, country-specific information in the foreseeable future and will provide the data to its customers who express interest.
June 27, 2008 in Electric (Battery), Hybrids, Market Background | Permalink | Comments (21) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/30650498
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference International Study Shows Global Gains in Consideration of Hybrid and Electric Vehicles:
Comments
If ever there were a compelling marketing study on the acceptance rate of Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) then this is it.
The 73% acceptance rating in China is a sure signal that the introduction of any affordable electric car in China will be an instant success.
Once again, the evidence of a dramatic and overwhelming switch to Electric cars once they are made available, is mounting.
Posted by: John Taylor | Jun 27, 2008 8:51:58 AM
The fact that 25% of Americans would consider buying a hybrid or electric car is HUGE. This proves:
That the automakers have missed the boat up to this point.
We don't need cap n trade or carbon taxes, the people are ready now.
If the car companies would build plug in hybrid or electric 4 passenger commuter cars they would sell off the shelf.
What I have been spouting the last 3 years is correct, I feel so vindicated.
Ha Ha, sorry, had to do it.
Posted by: Joseph | Jun 27, 2008 9:56:25 AM
John:
I agree with you.
Electrified vehicles acceptance will growth everywhere as liquid fuel price goes up.
At $10+/gal, not too many will want to drive gas guzzlers. Will $200/barrel oil be enough to do it? Oil speculators will get to be very rich in the next five years, buying and selling purchase options.
Wonder how many battery packs a year can the world produce? It will have to be well over 100 million packs per year to satisfy demand for PHEVs and BEVs.
Posted by: | Jun 27, 2008 9:59:07 AM
John: I agree. Whoever comes out with a cheap electric in volume, will sell everything they can produce. I think the focus on 300 mile range and L-Ion batteries is less important than time to market.
If Smith Electric Vehicles, Think, or someone else came out with a car now using Zebra or Firefly batteries that got 100 miles to a charge, they could sell them. The battery packs can be upgraded later.
The world does not need perfect, it needs satisfactory, affordable, and quickly.
The real question is how quickly battery producers will ramp up production. I think McCain's $300 million prize is a ridiculous idea (vs. subsidizing the same amount in battery purchases), but it has created a buzz and some excitement for the public. Bring on the EV's.
Posted by: JMartin | Jun 27, 2008 9:59:34 AM
"McCain's $300 million prize is a ridiculous idea"
I think we have reached a point where the R&D dollars being handed out by the Fed is delaying product to the market. Wy would GM work to bring the Volt out when the Gov is giving them money for nothing (continued R&D).
JMartin is correct, if the Gov is going to give money away, it needs to be in a productive way that will actually create change.
Posted by: Joseph | Jun 27, 2008 10:21:07 AM
Wonder how many battery packs a year can the world produce? It will have to be well over 100 million packs per year to satisfy demand for PHEVs and BEVs.
There are 600 million cars in the world today. As much as I and everyone else would like to junk them all and replace them with hybrid's or better ... this isn't going to happen in six years.
Nor does it need to happen that quickly, and arguably it shouldn't, since while we are pumping out HEV's, PHEV's will appear, and maybe something even better.
I will agree though that current production is far too low. I think even Toyota, Ford and the rest of them would agree.
Posted by: | Jun 27, 2008 10:22:48 AM
Joseph: "JMartin is correct, if the Gov is going to give money away, it needs to be in a productive way that will actually create change."
100% complete tax holiday for the production and sale of any HEV, PHEV, or BEV?
The principle problem here is that the incentive disappears soon as the program ends.
Posted by: | Jun 27, 2008 10:33:01 AM
Annon: Good point. The objective is to provide incentive for higher production (and hopefully lower prices) for batteries. Once the production lines are in place, incentives should decline -- but as you say, perhaps not disappear.
My concern with the "prize" approach is that the work is already in progress and the market will bring the changes he describes. I just don't think he is up on the current changing environment. For instance, the X Prize does appeal to me because it seeks a marketable (affordable) auto design for a car that will get 100 miles per gallon. The market can take it from there. I just don't understand the end point of the McCain proposal.
Posted by: JMartin | Jun 27, 2008 11:52:24 AM
Informative? Interesting? A good article? Yes.
A major "see" change? Compelling? No.
They aren't talking actual sales, they're just words "I definitely, very probably or RATHER LIKELY"
Did anyone think that if or when gas shoots past $4, people would NOT say "I'm rather likely to buy a hybrid"
What IS news is:
53.9 percent of American respondents assume the purchase would pay off after just two years. ??? Oooo .. and when they realize this is not true until gas is $15/g?
28.5 percent the French believed that the environmental and climate protection benefits of hybrid vehicles are more important than the reduced fuel costs. Umm - but I guess their costs have NOT risen much, percent wise - $10/g to $12/g.
The study also shows that attractive purchase costs are the strongest argument in favor of hybrid vehicles. WOW. Really? You know that that only holds true for .... EVERTHING.
“Only 6.6% of Americans … are familiar with the hybrid drive” Huh ? I think a typo. They meant 90+% are familiar with the hybrid drive, and 6.6% know the difference between series and parallel.
After the technology is explained, more than half of Chinese motorists (53.8%) can imagine purchasing a hybrid vehicle. Well, it is not hard to imagine anything. If their survey was worded like this, I can imagine anything might come out of it.
Posted by: ToppaTom | Jun 27, 2008 1:56:48 PM
McCain's $300 millions are ok for R&D but at least three zeros are missing for a comprehensive national project. A minimum of $300 billions are required to fully switch from ICE gas guzzlers to PHEVs and BEVs in the next two decades.
For those who think that's a lot of money, it is barely equivalent to the cost of 2 years of the current useless wars.
A simple $40/tonne progressive carbon tax could pay all of it in less than 10 years. The positive industrial impacts would be more than worthwhile.
Some of that support money should go to clean electricity production and to upgrade the national e-grid.
Of course, a few $$ billions would be used to build and equip battery factories to produce up to 20 million packs a year.
A few other $$ billions would go to modify and retool factories to build lighter, more efficient, lower cost PHEVs and BEVs.
USA's economy would flourish again. Oil imports would drop to almost zero within 20 - 25 years. GHG would go way down and most American would be healthier and happier...
Posted by: HarveyD | Jun 27, 2008 2:24:44 PM
A $40/tonne progressive carbon tax would insure that every manufacturer would shut down US operations and ship our jobs to other countries. This would result in the loss of trillions and the US would be plunged into the deepest depression imaginable.
Posted by: Joseph | Jun 27, 2008 3:07:38 PM
Joseph:
You may be very wrong:
The fuel taxes in most EU countries + Japan + many others are and have been equivalent to almost a $80/tonne carbon tax and their economies are doing as good if not better than USA's.
What is very wrong for USA is the 2400 billions (mostly borrowed money) spent on useless wars during the last 7 years.
A national carbon tax, redistributed nationally to accellerate the transition to electrified vehicles, would not hurt the economy, but may very well prevent the widespread economic slowdown from going much further.
Of course, oil people don't want that to happen. They like the $$ billions they are making with the status quo.
Posted by: HarveyD | Jun 27, 2008 5:25:32 PM
Harvey
At 36% the US already has the highest corporate taxes on the planet. This is the reason that US manufacturing has fled overseas. If you raised taxes even more the fallout would be devastating.
Posted by: Joseph | Jun 28, 2008 1:00:18 AM
My first thought on the McCain $300 millions X prize deal was that he had flipped to a green platform. Further looking shows it to be just a green wash on his old Oil platform.
1 ~ The new battery technology as per prize description already exists and just has not been placed into massive cheap production.
2 ~ The award has no stipulation of putting the technology into production ever.
3 ~ The program fails to promote any real change. Other X prize programs have not resulted in the product becoming a mainstream manufactured technology.
So, the McCain X-thing is a total scam, and a greenwash. But a very good greenwash that will fool many.
The good news is that the BEV technology is now well enough developed and proven so that we know it will be manufactured in mass numbers somewhere. If people can convert their own old cars to BEV, then manufactures can begin BEV production.
The number "100 million units per year" may well be a sustainable world production target, because BEV technology will let the world auto market expand well beyond the limits now imposed by the use of oil based fuels that today are having trouble meeting the demands of 600 million cars.
Posted by: John Taylor | Jun 28, 2008 2:17:52 AM
I think if a floor price for gasoline was implemented then carbon taxes / trading could be limited to stationary power generation. I suspect it is an impossible ask to get the American people to agree to a further rise in gasoline cost that is government induced. It seems to me that the gasoline prices we have now are enough to spur the required changes in transportation carbon output.
Posted by: Marcus | Jun 28, 2008 9:36:21 AM
Currently 76 percent of Americans drive to work alone, mostly in huge, off-road vehicles. However, in 1998, Americans were spending just 1.9 percent of their after-tax income on transportation fuels. Today, it's closer to five percent. Maybe $6 gallon gas will finally change some attitudes.
http://www.thedailygreen.com/
Posted by: Daily Green | Jun 28, 2008 12:38:44 PM
Joseph:
Corporate taxes at 36% is too high. USA may be taxing and subsidizing the wrong places, specially import/export wise.
The revenues from a progressive carbon tax on fossil fuels (all) could be redistribued in a way to boost exports, reduce imports, raise living standards for the good people and specially accellerate the transition to the new oil-free economy.
Huge investments ($$$ billions) are required now to build and equip the facilities to produce up to 20 million battery packs a year and as many PHEVs and BEVs.
If nothing is done, USA's imports and trade deficits will switch from Oil to batteries and BEVs. A country cannot miss the boat too often.
Posted by: HarveyD | Jun 30, 2008 9:15:50 AM
ToppaTom: you are right - this survey's wording is highly suspect. You forgot to mention another curious number:
"Fully 81.7% of the Chinese knew nothing of fuel-efficient drives."
Is this censorship or just ignorance?s
Posted by: sulleny | Jul 1, 2008 8:37:07 AM
Spending billions on new production facilities of cars and batteries is called gross mismanagement of resources.
We have enough auto plants and production facilities sitting idle all over the country.
Time to get rid of all these overpaid,so called managers and CEOs cluttering up our business world.
Posted by: HHN | Jul 1, 2008 9:00:09 AM
HHN:
You've got a good point. Recycling existing plants could be cheaper in many cases.
However, it is doubtful if batteries, PHEVs and BEVs could be economically built in USA/Canada without a helping hand to retool and automate to reduce labour cost.
Otherwise, many more cars and light trucks plants will close or move to Mexico or Asia. Should they? It may be unavoidable, like many other manufacturing facilities.
Posted by: HarveyD | Jul 3, 2008 6:37:04 AM
"At 36% the US already has the highest corporate taxes..." very few corporations actually pay this rate. 40 years ago, corportations paid more than 40% of the Federal Budget, now they pay less than 7%. Before AMT, GE paid NO taxes on billions in profits for years.
Posted by: sjc | Jul 5, 2008 11:00:22 PM
