Pike Research forecasts global stop-start vehicle sales to reach 37M units annually by 2020; 16:1 ratio over HEVs
01 June 2011
|
|
| Annual sales of SSVs and hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), world markets, 2011-2017. Source: Pike Research. Click to enlarge. |
Global sales of stop-start vehicles (SSVs) will experience strong growth in the coming decade, rising from 3 million units in 2011 to 37.3 million units per year by 2020, according to a new study by Pike Research. At that level, SSVs will represent more than one-third of all light-duty vehicle sales, Pike notes.
Although the technology is not as well known in North America, SSVs are already outselling hybrids globally, with 3.5 vehicles expected to be sold in 2011 for each hybrid. That gap will widen to a 16 to 1 ratio by 2017 because of the lower cost of SSVs compared to HEVs, Pike projects.
Stop-start vehicles (SSVs) (also called micro-hybrids or idle-stop vehicles), enable stopping the engine when the vehicle slows or is idling and subsequent restart, thus requiring more robust batteries and starter systems than are found in conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. SSVs offer 5% to 10% reductions in both fuel consumption and CO2 emissions at a cost premium approximately 10–25% that of full vehicle hybridization.
| “Stop-start vehicles strike an attractive balance between cost and fuel efficiency improvement.” |
| —senior analyst John Gartner |
Pike Research’s analysis finds that Europe has seen by far the greatest selection of vehicles with stop-start technology and the greatest volume of vehicles sold. North America has experienced a relatively slow penetration of the technology due to less stringent emissions reduction goals and a US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) testing cycle that underestimates the benefits of the technology. In Europe, more than two dozen SSV models were available as of early 2011, while in the United States, only three SSV models are for sale.
Western Europe will represent 98% of the 3 million SSVs sold in 2011, according to Pike. Sales of SSVs in North America will pass 1 million sold annually in 2014, and Asia will see 1.4 million SSV units sold in 2013.
By the end of the decade, the minority of models likely to have an engine idling when drivers are stopped will include very small fuel-efficient sub-compacts and larger performance vehicles for which momentarily shutting off the engine is perceived as a negative.
—Stop-Start Vehicles
|
|
| Annual SSV sales by region. Source: Pike Research. Click to enlarge. |
Pike Research’s report, “Stop-Start Vehicles”, concludes that global revenue from the sales of stop-start batteries will grow from $827 million in 2011 to $8.9 billion in 2020, at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 30%. Pike sees the market being dominated by enhanced flooded batteries (EFBs) and valve regulate lead-acid (VRLA) batteries, along with a small number of Li-ion batteries. Ultracapacitors, although more expensive, have almost unlimited cycle life and will compete with batteries as stop-start energy solutions.
It is surprising to note that North and Latin Americas will both lag Europe and Asia with the application of this lower cost fuel saving technology?
Our relative slow down is even more apparent with wind turbines installation ($63B in China and $8B in USA in 2010).
Will this going down movement filter into many other areas, or until we pull out of the 2007 Wall Street/Fed made financial crisis?
Posted by: HarveyD | 01 June 2011 at 07:26 AM
A slowdown in wind turbine construction is not surprising, as demand for electricity is pretty static due to the slow economy keeping electricity demand down.
The slow rate of implementation of stop/start is far less excusable.
Posted by: Davemart | 01 June 2011 at 07:54 AM
Have we reached a plateau in 2005/2007 and there is a very high probability that we will be going downhill (relatively speaking) for the next decades/centuries? That's what is bound to happen if we do not find ways to effectively reduce unchecked graft ($$T/year) and return those resources into the national economy.
Is it history repeating itself? Many empires have risen and fallen before.
Posted by: HarveyD | 01 June 2011 at 08:10 AM
I think the EU 130 gms/km (120?) limit caused the uptake in Europe.
There was pressure to get the figures down, and this was a way that could be applied to most cars without huge redesign.
Posted by: mahonj | 01 June 2011 at 09:08 AM
These "forecasts" don't know what's going to happen in 2012, rather less 2020.
Posted by: kelly | 01 June 2011 at 10:05 AM
Clean energy production and clean transportation vehicles making are not a burden on the economy but a great opportunity. China and Germany have moved ahead at a quicker pace and their economy is second to none.
Local deniers and status quo speculators are driving USA's economy down and stopping it from going ahead and leading as it should.
Poor decisions, unchecked speculation, high corn ethanol production and oil wars will be very costly to fix and will tax future generations into poverty. Time to wake up USA.
Posted by: HarveyD | 01 June 2011 at 10:12 AM
A perfect example of how incentives must be aligned with goals. I suppose modifying CAFE rules to align with the real-world benefits of this technology is almost impossible to achieve, politically (sigh).
Posted by: Nick Lyons | 01 June 2011 at 10:23 AM
When the great and wonderful OZ of government screws up the foils for these selfless green idiots, never seems to rise up and criticize them.
The reason that Start-Stop is not prevalent in the USA is there is simply no benefit to be gained by the auto companies, domestic or foreign, in spending a dime for it, when the government mandates spending on so many other things, too.
Under the documented CAFE rules and the undocumented and arbitrary, different EPA testing rules, they don't have much or any time devoted to simply standing with the motor running, as would happen in at a traffic light, or in a traffic jam.
Perverse incentives result is perverse results.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | 01 June 2011 at 01:05 PM
@Nick Lyons,
I willingly accept the benefits of keeping the CAFE rules as they exist, which in this case leads to perverse results. Being able to compare cars of different eras on the same unchanging measuring scale is very good; and allows us to see the progress that has been made since 1970. It helps put paid to the constant wailing that the World is going to hell in a handbasket, when genuine environmental progress is in fact occuring.
One benefit of the bureaucratic rules perversity, is that when Start-Stop is offered here, it comes in the form that includes some other mild benefits. Such as some brake regeneration/energy recovery and/or very mild hybridization, such as BAS II, aka e-Assist. These added features, small though they are, do add to fuel economy measurements by the bureaucratic measurement rules,and cover the cost of Stop-Start.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | 01 June 2011 at 01:17 PM
Stan,
You should know by now almost no one reads your posts.
Posted by: SJC | 01 June 2011 at 01:54 PM
Actualy sjc hes 100% right. Cafe is what is holding up stop start in the us.
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 01 June 2011 at 02:05 PM
Stas Petertroll would rather maintain a comparison with vehicles 40 years out of date than fix the driving cycle so the figures reflect what today's drivers might realistically get in the driving they actually do... which is what they're supposed to be able to use that sticker for.
The Petertroll is wrong. Micro-hybrid is being held up by too-cheap gas in the USA; even if it's not too cheap right now, the public expects it to be soon and buys accordingly.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 01 June 2011 at 06:22 PM
No ep hes right the current test bleeps start stop they have already covered that here on this site years ago.
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 01 June 2011 at 08:44 PM
I believe Stan is correct on this one. http://green.autoblog.com/2011/05/09/stop-start-epa-test-cycle-mpg-problem/
The problem is that the EPA's current testing methods don't accurately assess the real-world fuel-saving benefits of stop-start technology, which shuts the engine off when the vehicle is stopped. The EPA only has limited idle time built into their fuel use tests, which means that most models equipped with start-stop get absolutely no bump in their official fuel economy ratings. Without any sort of official support, automakers see no boost in CAFE numbers for their start-stop vehicles. Currently, only three non-hybrid vehicles sold in the U.S. – the BMW M3, the Porsche Cayenne and Porsche Panamera – feature stop-start technology.
The lack of incentives, according to John Gartner, an analyst at Pike Research, will likely keep most automakers from equipping U.S. models with stop-start tech. However, Gartner claims that most American buyers would "embrace vehicles that don't burn fuel when stopped" if they were available.
Posted by: sascatcher | 02 June 2011 at 07:25 AM
What is the most effective ways to accelerate the introduction of low cost fuel saving technologies?
1. High fuel price with higher fuel taxes?
2. Regulations such as CAFE at +8%/year.
3. Variable purchase taxes including high Incentives and Penalties
4. Registration fees based on liquid fuel consumption.
5. Road fees based on liquid fuel consumption and/or weight of vehicle.
Why not introduce (and widely publish) all five (+) methods progressively over 5 to 10 years to give people time to react and purchase more efficient vehicles.
Good news for electrified vehicles and decentralized e-energy production. Japan (NEDO) and five EU firms have joint together to design lower cost concentrating solar panels with a 45+% conversion efficiency by 2016. Small 10 M2 roof mounted panels could produce an average of 25 Kwh/day or enough for an average all electric home. Four more M2 could supply and average BEV with daily power. Electrified vehicles with 2+ M2 panel integrated into their roof could capture enough solar energy to extend their e-range by 50+% and get almost a full charge if parked in bright sunny place. Roof top panels could open to double and/or triple the area.
Posted by: HarveyD | 02 June 2011 at 08:46 AM
As I remember it not only do they not get a milage bumb due to the cafe test BUT the emmsions test makes things very hard as well. Dont remember the exact reasons tho.
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 02 June 2011 at 09:57 AM
The problem I have with CAFE as it existed was the E85 loophole for trucks and SUVs as if they ran on E85 all the time which few do.
Posted by: SJC | 02 June 2011 at 10:16 AM
The problem with cafe is the buricrats and politicians.
I dont mind a simple use less oil damnit approach to car production but when they got all buricratic and politoical on our ass it got stupid real fast and sluggish as only a buricratic bulk can get.
Posted by: wintermane2000 | 02 June 2011 at 04:05 PM
I'll grant the Petertroll one thing: micro-hybrid systems will get short shrift IF the CAFE limits are increased AND the test cycles are not changed to incorporate heavy-traffic conditions.
GM has the BAS-II micro-hybrid system coming on the 2012 Regal and LaCrosse. Even if the CAFE sticker doesn't reflect the improvement, consumer word-of-mouth and magazine reviews can.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 02 June 2011 at 06:33 PM
Let me take the contrary viewpoint, perhaps there is no decrease in TCO with star-stop, perhaps an increase in repair cost as cars get older.
Posted by: Herm | 03 June 2011 at 05:04 AM
Heavy (slower) traffic conditions will be incorporated in CAFE when the Big-3 make/sell more fuel efficient vehicles, specially with stop-start micro-hybrid. Otherwise, it would make them look worse than imports and local sales would go down again. All national standards have to favor local/national products, specially when elections are over the horizon.
Posted by: HarveyD | 03 June 2011 at 12:37 PM
So.
Stan is essentially correct about CAFE testing.
Buyers do not value/choose the minor improvements from start-stop, because, umm; i don't know.
Brainwashed?
Again?
Is this "lack of Start-stop" bound to happen if we do not find ways to effectively reduce unchecked graft?
Can’t we still blame this graft on Bush? Just say that the Chicago Machine has not yet had time to overcome this corruption?
Sure, why not?
it was the GOP that would not allow higher gas taxes when the Dems controlled congress ! ? -
Eh? What? How does that work?
Many of us favor higher gas taxes, but let’s not let totalitarianism run away with us.
The voters apparently will not accept higher gas taxes.
CAFÉ increases MAYBE have less effect on “Detroit’ these days with more little cars and lower overhead?– MAYBE.
8%/yr is easily justifiable to those who see no problem with 15% per year.
What is the best %/yr for the common good – I don’t know.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 07 June 2011 at 05:43 PM