IEE forecasts electric-drive LDVs could constitute between 2 to 12% of US vehicle stock by 2035
22 April 2013
|Forecast by LDV scenario (millions). Source: IEE. Click to enlarge.|
Under its most conservative of scenarios, more than 5 million light-duty electric-drive vehicles will be on the road in the US by 2035, according to a new forecast by IEE, an institue of the Edison Foundation. According to the report, “Forecast of On-Road Electric Transportation in the US (2010-2035)”, this figure could increase to as high as 30 million EVs depending on advances in battery technology.
IEE developed three general scenarios for electric transportation: low, medium, and high. These scenarios provide projections based on EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) 2012 Reference Case, advances in battery technology (e.g., improved battery chemistry that allows for faster and deeper charging and reductions in battery cell and other component costs), and oil prices increasing to $200 per barrel:
Low. The low electric transportation scenario is based on the AEO 2012 Reference Case. In this, electric light duty vehicles (LDVs) represent 2% of the registered vehicle stock (5.3 million out of 276 million light duty vehicles), and electricity consumption increases by 33 TWh in 2035.
The switch to electric LDVs reduces vehicle emissions by about 9 to 22 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent in the year 2035 based on a 2035 power generation mix. The specific reduction depends on improvements in internal combustion engine (ICE) technologies, as well as changes in the electric power generation fuel mix.
Medium. The medium electric transportation scenario is based on the AEO High-Tech Battery case, but with strategic alterations developed by the project team. It assumes significant improvements in vehicle battery costs and performance that promote higher market penetrations of electric vehicles. Such improvements include enhanced battery chemistry to allow for faster and deeper charging, expansion of pubic charging infrastructure, and superior battery energy density.
Based on these improvements, the project team adjusted the AEO scenario from AEVs at 52% of the electric LDV market and zero presence of 200-mile vehicles to AEVs at 63%, some of which will have a 200-mile range. These assumptions better represent the advances in battery technology, according to IEE.
In this scenario, EVs constitute 10% of the registered vehicle stock (24.8 million out of 261 million light duty vehicles), and electricity consumption increases by 112 TWh in 2035.
The switch to electric LDVs reduces vehicle emissions by about 41 to 94 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent in the year 2035 based on a 2035 power generation mix. The specific reduction depends on improvements in ICE technologies, as well as changes in the electric power generation fuel mix.
High. The high electric transportation scenario combines the advanced battery scenario with high oil prices ($200/barrel in 2035). The vehicle stock and new EV sales resulting from those two scenarios are summed, then multiplied by 0.90 to reflect that these sales would not be simply additive. A portion of the purchases driven by high oil prices would also occur under the drivers of advanced battery technology.
In this scenario, electric LDVs constitute 12% of the registered vehicle stock (30.4 million out of 256 million light duty vehicles), and electricity consumption increases by 147 TWh in 2035.
The switch to electric LDVs reduces vehicle emissions by about 51 to 116 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent in the year 2035 based on a 2035 power generation mix. The specific reduction depends on improvements in ICE technologies, as well as changes in the electric power generation fuel mix.
In addition to forecasting LDV EV penetration and consumption in each of the scenarios, IEE considered other transportation ramifications as well, including:
Low. The low electric transportation scenario includes electrification of commercial light trucks, transit bus, school bus, and military vehicle type stock at 50% the growth rate for electric LDVs in the AEO 2012 Transportation Reference Case.
The battery and charging infrastructure technology used by these vehicles types is similar to electric LDVs.
Freight trucks, air transportation, and domestic and international shipping vehicle types displace 20% of their fossil fuel energy demands with auxiliary electric power while idled.
Transit and commuter rail electrification are based on the AEO 2012 Transportation Reference Case.
Medium. The medium electric transportation scenario includes electrification of commercial light trucks, transit bus, school bus, and military vehicle type stock at 50% the growth rate for electric LDVs in the AEO 2012 Transportation Reference Case. The battery and charging infrastructure technology used by these vehicles types is similar to electric LDVs.
Freight trucks, air transportation, and domestic and international shipping vehicle types displace 35% of their fossil fuel energy demands with auxiliary electric power while idled.
Transit and commuter rail electrification are based on the AEO 2012 Transportation Reference Case.
High. The high electric transportation scenario includes electrification of commercial light trucks, transit bus, school bus, and military vehicle type stock at 50% the growth rate for electric LDVs in the Advanced Battery & High Oil ($200/barrel in 2035) scenarios. The battery and charging infrastructure technology used by these vehicles types is similar to electric LDVs.
Freight trucks, air transportation, and domestic and international shipping vehicle types displace 50% of their fossil fuel energy demands with auxiliary electric power while idled.
Transit and commuter rail electrification are based on the AEO 2012 Transportation Reference Case.
The results in this report show that advanced battery technology (in the medium scenario) can increase the penetration of electric LDVs from approximately 5 million to 24 million in 2035, or roughly 1 out of every ten cars and light trucks on the road in the US. When advanced batteries are coupled with high oil prices (in the high scenario), the number of electric vehicles could rise to more than 30 million by 2035 (about 12 percent of the LDV stock in the US in 2035).
The growth of electric LDVs in the medium and high scenarios is largely due to improvements in vehicle battery costs and performance. Given that the medium and high scenarios project 10 to 12 percent of the vehicle stock to be electrified in 2035, sizable emission reductions of 41 to 116 MMT CO2 will occur in 2035 through the use of electricity as a transportation fuel.—“Forecast of On-Road Electric Transportation in the US (2010-2035)”
IEE is an Institute of The Edison Foundation focused on advancing the adoption of innovative and efficient technologies among electric utilities and their technology partners that will transform the power grid. IEE is governed by a Management Committee of 23 electric industry Chief Executive Officers. IEE members are the investor-owned utilities who represent about 70% of the US electric power industry.
Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons.
Nobody will ever want a computer in their home.
The phone has too many flaws to be seriously considered as a means of communication
The world is full of morons making stupid statements. Nice to see some things never change.
Posted by: DaveD | 22 April 2013 at 12:59 PM
It is difficult to believe that USA may have fallen that far behind Japan, China, EU etc by 2035?
Posted by: HarveyD | 22 April 2013 at 01:16 PM
The world is full of morons making stupid statements.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 22 April 2013 at 09:52 PM
The idea that anyone would be able to project what people will be driving more than 20 years into the future is absurd. The idea that you can predict what sort of cars people will be buying primarily on financial criteria is moronic, or else nobody would pay the extra bucks for Mercedes, BMWs. People will buy electric cars because they provide a much nicer driving experience than ICE.
Posted by: ChrisL | 23 April 2013 at 05:47 AM
Some of the battery technologies described here on GCC would make electrification an absolute no-brainer. For instance, the battery capable of 600 C charge/discharge rate would add a lot to both hybrid efficiency and sports-car performance. If even one such technology hit the market, I'd expect to see 20% or higher penetration within 1 model refresh, 50% after 2.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 23 April 2013 at 07:31 AM
It is called economics of a car company
they want to sell both cars
VW has been making diesels that get better MPG than the gasoline version for a premium. After 20 years of making the diesel i am sure they could make it for the same price but they know one part of the buyers will pay the premium and one part wants to keep the cost down
Posted by: danschl | 23 April 2013 at 07:36 AM
Did TT, DaveD, D and KitP joined into a resistance group?
ChrisL may be right. It is almost impossible to predict what vehicles the world will be driving in 2035.
One easy prediction is that the majority of new units will be built and sold in Asia, from 2012 and onward.
Posted by: HarveyD | 23 April 2013 at 08:37 AM
Predicting to 2035 is + 22 years.
Now look back 22 years to 1991 - not so different to now.
So maybe the future will be not so different.
Here is my guess:
More fuel efficient cars, varying degrees of hybridisation, cars running on natural gas. Very few pure electric cars.
A very large number of cars in the developing world.
Maybe lots of e-bikes or e-scooters.
Not very exciting, really.
Posted by: mahonj | 23 April 2013 at 09:10 AM
LOL Harvey, we all made our comments but from different perspectives. I doubt you'll find Kit P and me on the same side of many arguments. He's plenty smart, but our philosophies differ on what's important and will happen. TT always surprises me with his views so I won't predict what he means.
For me, this was simple and EP nailed it for me: Anyone who predicts what will happen 22 years in the future, especially for technology, is full of SHYTE.
Posted by: DaveD | 23 April 2013 at 10:10 AM
"Policies for Sustainable Mobility"
It is not about predictions nor who thinks they are right even when they are not. It is about policies for sustainable mobility.
Policies are something we agree on that will get us where we want to go in the future. I doubt arguing about valve timing or turbo chargers will bring that about.
Posted by: SJC | 23 April 2013 at 01:00 PM
Yes SJC....accelerated vehicle electrification will require sustained new policies, which may never be passed in certain countries, especially in USA and Canada where Big Oil, Coal, NG, Corn Ethanol, ICEVs lobbies etc can dictate what politicians will do or not do.
OTOH, the game is very different in many other countries like Japan, China, India, South Korea etc where Big Oil does not have such powerful political stronghold. Japan is a leader in the use of more efficient vehicles and will soon be joined by South Korea, Singapore and China.
Posted by: HarveyD | 23 April 2013 at 01:47 PM
It looks like I do not even have to post to receive comments.
“The world is full of morons ”
And theater major making technical predictions. I could not kind any key staff at IEE that could even remotely qualify as a high school science teacher. There is no requirement to be qualified to write a report but it might be a good idea to check out who is writing it.
“Anyone who predicts what will happen 22 years in the future, especially for technology, ”
Actually I am very good at it. I predicted that BEV would go from zero to zero. That is my prediction about 20 years from now. Look at the curve at the start of the article. Zero now, 35% in the future! So what are the assumptions they make?
“oil prices increasing to $200 per barrel ....”
I predict that when we run out of oil, that we might use more BEV.
The reason that BEV are so flawed is the the reason people are not true. For example,
“People will buy electric cars because they provide a much nicer driving experience than ICE.”
I commute to work in a '89 Ford Ranger. Not having a big car payment is a much nicer driving experience.
One of the things I would have not predicted 20 years ago is having two 20 year old cars that need very little maintenance and use no between oil changes.
“More fuel efficient cars ..Very few pure electric cars. .”
Good start, good finish weak in the middle.
“If even one ..”
The only way our control system engineer can be right is by starting with an if.
Posted by: Kit P | 24 April 2013 at 05:18 PM
Tesla, Nissan, Ford, GM and Toyota are all selling vehicles with substantial EV range in the US market. Tesla's production is up to 400 per week, some 20,000 per year. The Leaf sold more than 2200 units in March.
The world has been out of $20/bbl oil for years now. We're running out of $80/bbl oil. Soon all that will be left to drill is $120/bbl and up.
The same "if" applied to tire technology. The radial tire happened, doubling tire life and slashing rolling resistance. Half the tire plants in the USA closed for lack of sales, and the gas mileage of the existing fleet went up substantially. It'll happen again.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 24 April 2013 at 08:35 PM
I am an old school engineer who started out using a slide rule which requires the understanding of the meaning of numbers.
For example, 0.999999 = 1.0 or 0.000001 = 0.
Of course it depends on context such as 1 ppm might be a water chemistry limit for boiler chemistry.
“The Leaf sold more than 2200 units in March. ”
Put that in context by graphing sales of Corolla, Civic, and Focus and Leaf sales show up as zero.
The real world is more complex that a control system engineer system engineer. If your goal is to reduce oil imports (BEV do not use less energy), what matters is the area under the curve. My wife and mother-in law just set out on a 2000 mile trip. The leaf would not get them to the interstate. E-P makes up reasons to buy a BEV that are not true.
“The radial tire ”
That was a better idea. Another better idea that is even older is the ICE. Steam was used for trains and cars but was replaced by the ICE.
E-P will learn that his choice of cars was a bad idea. By refusing to tell us what the sticker price of his new car is it is fear that I will point out what a bad ides it is.
“Soon all that will be left to drill is $120/bbl and up. ”
Maybe you should wait until hauling batteries around is actually a good idea.
Hint, of you really serious about reducing oil imports, drive less.
Posted by: Kit P | 25 April 2013 at 05:49 AM
After KitP's usual bad news, here are good recent news.
In the last 5 years (2007-2012) people in our province have purchased 2X the number of smaller cars and a lot less heavy 4 x 4 pick-ups. Contrary to what many posters are trying to claim, smaller cars had a positive effect on road safety.
Here are surprising stats/facts (2007-2012):
1. Net Population increase = +9.5%
2. Vehicle fleet increase = +16.0%
3. Small cars fleet increase = +26.5%
4. Road fatalities.......... = -16.2%
5. Older (75+) drivers fatalities = -56%
6. Pedestrian fatalities = -31.5%
7. Bicycles fatalities = -38.0%
8. Motorcyles fatalities = +5.5%
The conclusion seem to be that smaller cars kill and injure less people and create less property damage than heavy pick-ups and similar vehicles.
The switch to smaller vehicles is fully justified for safety and security reasons. Monsters on wheels are real killers?
Posted by: HarveyD | 25 April 2013 at 09:42 AM
Fatalities per km travelled have gone down practically every year for the past 60. They were going down when SUVs were a growing segment, and they are going down still. They are also going down in countries where trucks and SUVs were never a significant part of the fleet.
Your statistics tell us is that there's a global economic slump, and therefore people can't afford bigger cars. That's "good news" until you realize that the trend will reverse itself with the economy.
BTW, the trend toward fewer road deaths and injuries will continue, regardless of automotive fashion. It's a multi-factor trend, but there will always be people who are willing to assign all of the credit to their pet cause (speed radars, graduated licensing, alcohol awareness, anti-lock brakes, high-strength steel, etc).
Posted by: Bernard | 26 April 2013 at 05:39 AM
Bernard...contrary to USA, vehicle sales (and sales of houses) in our area has gone up in the last five years. We have more cars per capita than we ever had before. Secondly, people travel more Km per year per vehicle.
The noted difference is that in a few provinces, the proportion of smaller cars is going up and larger units going down.
Provinces with more small cars have less road fatalities than provinces with more large pick-up style vehicles.
The conclusion is that more cars (if they are small) can create a reduction in road fatalities? Do smaller car drivers, drive more carefully? May be so.
One exception is certainly drivers of small Honda Civics, mainly younger drivers with less experience etc.
Posted by: HarveyD | 26 April 2013 at 07:26 AM
Increasing 'population spread' into further away suburbs may be one of the major factor favoring smaller cars + higher distances. Higher gas price ($5.25 US/gal) is another one? Young working couples often use two smaller cars and travel up to (50+ km x 2 = 100+ km) each per day to go to work. Commuter trains have not kept up with demands.
Lower cost PHEVs with 50+ Km e-range + charging facilities at the work place and commuter trains stations, could be a good interim solution.
Many more commuter e-trains would be a better solution but the majority does not want to pay the very high initial and operation costs. Each additional line takes up to 20 years to realize and is the subject of long difficult political arguments.
Posted by: HarveyD | 26 April 2013 at 09:19 AM
As you must surely know(?), Quebec has the most urban population (% who live in cities) of all Canadian Provinces.
"Urban" means smaller cars, lower average speeds, fewer road fatalities, and higher pedestrian fatalities. It's all common sense.
You conclusions are nothing more than wishful thinking. Case in point: if small car drivers are so careful, how come they kill more pedestrians? That hardly seems very careful!
Posted by: Bernard | 26 April 2013 at 10:30 AM
Pedestrian fatalities were -31% over the last 5 years NOT +31% while general population growth was +9.5% (and close to 15% in most recently enlarged cities - including many old suburbs).
More cars and more pedestrians should have given more pedestrian fatalities in cities but it did not.
One of my next door neighbor is a car insurance executive. They have very defined interesting stats and studies leading to the same conclusions.
Take the over-powered huge monsters on wheels and motorcycles off the streets and roads and fatalities, injuries and property damages will go down drastically.
Larger vehicle (VUS, Pick-ups and 4 x 4) drivers normally drive faster and more dangerously? The one exception may be Civic's young drivers.
If you don't believe it, please call or visit a car insurance specialist, who has the information and is willing to talk about it.
Posted by: HarveyD | 26 April 2013 at 12:04 PM
Again Harvey, the overall trend is downwards. That's been the case for over 60 years, irrespective of whether SUV sales were going up or down.
If you are so keen to assign this 60 year trend to last year's sales figures and to your pet causes (apparently you are not a fan of people who drive Hondas, or any car bigger than yours), how do you explain the fact that these same fatality figures were also going down 10 years ago when SUV sales were going up?
By your own logic, SUVs were our saviours, helping to bring down death rates! And 10 years before that, it was minivans...
How do you also explain that fatalities are going down all over the world, even in jurisdictions where SUVs are gaining in popularity?
The answer is that you don't. You picked some unrelated variables, and no matter how hard you try, no correlation will magically appear.
Even your own figures are wrong. Big SUV sales in Quebec are down slightly, but small SUVs are booming relative to sedans. Does this mean that traffic fatalities are going up? Of course not. It just mean that potholes are getting bigger, and that families would rather traverse them in a small SUV than in a small sedan.
Posted by: Bernard | 27 April 2013 at 05:15 AM
Quoth the Twit:You really REALLY need to stop posting while drunk.
They could drive a Leaf for local use and rent an ICEV for the infrequent long trip. (This shows the superiority of analysis born from linear programming over ideology.)
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 27 April 2013 at 10:23 PM
(the keyword filter has gone insane.)Beware the ides of the twit? I have connections which gave me the car for much less than sticker price.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 27 April 2013 at 10:29 PM
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 27 April 2013 at 10:32 PM
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 27 April 2013 at 10:34 PM