## Navigant forecasts plug-in and fuel cell vehicles to be 2.5% of all vehicles in use in 2035; global parc of >2B vehicles

##### 20 May 2014

In a new report, Navigant Research estimates that nearly 84.1 million new light-duty vehicles (LDVs) will be sold globally in 2014, putting more than 1.2 billion vehicles on the world’s roads. The company forecasts that annual LDV sales will grow to 126.9 million in 2035, representing a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 2.0%. The number of LDVs in use worldwide will grow by 72.4% over the forecast period—i.e., to more than 2 billion vehicles.

Navigant forecasts that sales of conventional ICE vehicles will fall significantly over the period, experiencing a CAGR of -6.7%; the share of vehicles in use with conventional ICE powertrains will thus fall from 95% in 2014 to 45% in 2035. Navigant suggests that conventional ICE vehicles will be mainly supplanted by stop-start vehicles (SSVs), which will grow from representing fewer than 3% of vehicles in use in 2014 to around 45% in 2035. Hybrid-electric and natural-gas (HEVs and NGVs) will account for almost 8% of global share, while plug-in hybrid (PHEV), battery-electric (BEV), and fuel-cell electric (FCV) together will add up to almost 2.5% of the LDVs in use in 2035.

 LDVs in use by drivetrain, 2015-2035. Source: Navigant. Click to enlarge.

Although most governments have supported a comprehensive strategy to reduce oil dependency in the transportation sector, the depth of that support varies with each vehicle technology, Navigant notes.

Additionally, regional fuel costs and refueling infrastructure availability play a major role in consumer acceptance of alternative fuels regardless of government backing. Therefore, the firm concludes, the adoption of light duty (LD) alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) and fuel efficient technologies will vary significantly from region to region.

While the landscape for vehicle technologies will change significantly, alterations to the primary fuel landscape will be more modest. LDVs primarily fueled by gasoline will fall as a percentage of the overall global fleet from 82% in 2014 to 75% in 2035. Fuel efficiency gains from diesel engines will increase diesel’s share of the fleet from 16% in 2014 to 19% in 2035. By 2035, more than 4% of vehicles will be fueled by natural gas and less than 1% by hydrogen. Vehicles fueled exclusively by electricity will represent 1% of global LDVs in use; however, PEVs (which also includes PHEVs) will represent almost 1.7%.

—“Transportation Forecast: Light Duty Vehicles”

If this forecast happens to be correct, many major city dwellers will have major health problems and many will suffocate from polluted air. Over 20% of Florida and other low lands may be underwater.

These are very depressing numbers. Of course they can't predict what cars will be on the market in the future and at what price, nor can they predict the price of oil.

I suppose the biggest reason for low numbers actually in-use is that cars do last a long time and a majority of the cars being bought today are conventional.

Cheer up. The chart is also telling you that the size of the "conventional" ICEV fleet will decline by over 200M. Since the higher incomes tend to be concentrated in urban areas (and thus more likely to be adopters of newer, perhaps more expensive technologies), the number of idling engines in urban traffic is going to plummet.

So, yay! Paris, Beijing, LA, Tokyo and others who will be the first beneficiaries.

I still don't really know what kind of car I will get in the future. There is more and more choice. My actual car is a dodge neon 2005 5 speeds manual. I think it is still good up to 2023 approx. If ever it broke or I get an accident or it's been stole then I will buy a used Honda civic 2003 at 2500$approx. Years ago I was confident to purchase a hydrogen fuelcell car but even in 2023 I think that in my area there won't be a hydrogen infrastructure, that's really a shame. One thing is sure is that pollution levels will reach new highs as time go. We are late and there is no new or emerging technology on the horizon. We will maybe suffocate and die or be roosted by the sun with nothing that can grow and be harvested anymore. There is few fishs in the ocean too. I taught in the past about green algae fuels and nutrients but the research project are gone and dead now, this was an illusion, there won't be green algae harvesting never. We are doom by pollution and a lack of clean alternatives. Maybe my actual car is my last and when it will be worn-out then there won't be any replacement for it except maybe autonomous driving bev car sharing. The future could have been hydrogen car everywhere with a clean cheap hydrogen infrastructure. But they miss the cheap efficient hydrogen infrastructure with a lack of cheap efficient water electrolysis, we are now doomed by traffic suffocation. Big oil, car manufacturers and world goverments have destroyed the earth. This is, to put it mildly, hogwash. Many people make the mistake of believing the future will be very much like the past, and discount exponential technology growth. Which will come just in time to help meet the inevitable carbon regulations that we will finally pass when people--at long last--stop denying the obvious. Such regulations will price out standard ICE vehicles in favor of renewably powered electric ones. The only reprieve would be if carbon neutral liquid fuel begins to see mass production. Even then, the BEVs of the late 2020s will likely sport 1,000 mile range and superior performance. Why would anyone want an ICE? And with megawatt hour class batteries available, RVs, construction equipment and long haul trucks will see electrification, too. Sean is a better Prophet. Very un-optimistic, even cynical, forecast. I see it like this: G7 countries currently make-up nearly 15% of world pop, by 2035 probably 10%. The US has more than 4 cars for every 5 people, the rest of the G7, a bit less. If we take the 2B cars on the road in 2035, it may be reasonable to say that 2 out of 3 people in G7 have cars, while 1 in 4 everywhere else at that future time. I personally think that 1/2 cars in G7 will be PHEV/BEV/FCEV and say 1/8 everywhere else - that's my super-optimistic guess… that works out to be over 20% of all cars being in that category - a lot smaller than I thought. Even if we go nuts pessimistic and cling to the idea that ICE fuels will be only twice the price as now and tech will otherwise stall and so: say that only 1/5 G7 cars are PHEV/BEV/FCEV and 1/20 elsewhere, that is still over 8% of the total expected 2B cars on road. Not sure on the original assumptions, but the developing world can't possibly support that type of ICE infrastructure - how many barrels of oil per day is that? at that time? 25% more than now? Projections like this ignore the volunteer sales and PR force that plug-in vehicles have, of which Sean and I are both members. They also ignore the inevitable effects of spot shortages of petroleum products. When the folks running on electric traction are the only ones who can get around, everybody is going to want one. Number of electrified vehicles on the roads versus ICEVs is rather meaningless because ICEVs have as 120+ years head start. Number of each type of new vehicles sold in post 2020 years is more relevant for the future, including 2035. The ratio of ICEVs to electrified vehicles (HEVs-PHEVs-BEVs & FCEVs) sold has started to change with double digits in Norway, Japan, California, etc Changes will accelerate quickly in most countries after 2020. By 2035 and thereafter, the majority of private vehicles sold may not be ICEVs. China is not building nuclear plants and piling on wind and solar so their people can burn Russian Oil forever. Plus they understand the costs incurred by pollution when the state pays for healthcare. My guess is they will have a higher penetration of BEV's and PHEV's than the US in the VERY near future. "Projections like this ignore the volunteer sales and PR force that plug-in vehicles have, of which Sean and I are both members." And yet they do not ignore the FACT that even most Futurists and "PR force" do not drive EV's, as most of this fervently faithful forum do not. Even those who believe the world is on the very cusp of ending, with choking citizens keeling over in the streets and beachfront hotels toppling in rising seas, seem to hope everyone else will motor about on Lepton Power really soon whilst they themselves do not. And most people will continue to select ever-improving liquid-fueled conveyances, as most of you have done despite your superior intellect (or maybe because of it). Now I know I'm a troglodyte, and I admit I had to drive the Pathfinder this past weekend to pack up a college grad, but I do manage to put in ALMOST all my miles on the output of the Byron Nuclear plant of late (I'm up to 4.6 mi/kWh). As a real live EV driver I can tell you sweet as they are BEVs will be a LONG time making it past 1% of the global fleet. I mean really: check the garages of people you know who are WAY more enlightened than I am. Sean drives a Volt. I drive a Fusion Energi. We walk the walk. There are 4 forces are work which drive non-ICE sales. 1. Electrified cars are fun to drive with really high torque at zero revs. 2. Costs of batteries are continuing to fall. I guess one could expect a 50% decrease by 2020 in-line with Tesla's "Gigafactory" which emphasizes economies of scale. One of the numerous "breakthroughs" reported on these web-pages may also come into play by 2020 to provide additional cost decreases. 3. Oil consumption continuously bumps up against production constraints requiring a higher fraction of higher-cost oil. ie Petrol prices stay high. 4. World governments will be faced with more pressure to combat climate change as its effects become increasingly evident. We're getting reports that 2014 will be an El-Nino year and hence is likely to break the all-time highest global temperature. I have no idea how these effects are modelled by the consultants. A BEV is inherently less complex than even a conventional ICE let alone a stop-start ICE. If the battery cost decreases they have the potential to be cheaper in capital costs as well as far cheaper to run and more fun to drive. This is the first time I have seen stop start vehicles designated as a separate class. To me SSVs are just a slightly enhanced version of a conventional vehicle. If you merge SSVs back into conventional vehicles, the story goes away - there is practically no change, just a bit more of the electric spectrums. By 2020 or so, the world will see a real commercial war between: 1. BEVs 2. BEVs with FC range extender 3. FCEVs 4. BEVs with dying ICEV range extender 5. Dying improved ICEVs. By 2035 or so, 80+% of the commercial war will be between #1, #2 and #3 above. When you add launch assist or all-electric accessories to an SSV, you've got something. @EP, now you are talking, can you morph an SSV into a HEV at lowest possible cost. If you could crawl through traffic (say up to 30mph) on electic, it would be very good - maybe even 20mph. @ mahonj, this is what Toyota HEVs already do (at 80+ kph) for about 2 Km for less than$1000 over the regular ICE equivalent models. The Lincoln HEV also does it without extra cost.

@harvey,
Indeed, but they are full HEVs, with the according costs.
My hope would be to add this functionality to an SSV (at a cost between a SSV and a HEV.

The trick is to get the greatest fuel economy for the lowest cost, by whatever means.

The Impala Stop Start has comparable internal dimension to the Camry Hybrid 2014, yet is more expensive.
The Camry Hybrid has suggest retail price of $26,300 vs. the Impala SS is priced at$27,750. The Camry Hybrid is capable of 41 mpg combined, while the Impala SS has 25 mpg combined, or 64% higher MPG, which will translate into much higher overall cost due to high fuel cost.

For example, at $3.5/gallon, the Camry Hybrid's fuel cost will be 8.5 cents/mile while the Impala costs 14 cents/mile, or 5.5 cents/mile higher. At 160,000 miles, the Impala will cost$8,800 MORE due to fuel cost, plus over $1,000 more initial cost will bring the cost differential to almost$10,000 in favor of the full hybrid vs a comparable stop-start hybrid! And that's not counting on service and repair of the transmission and the brake on the Impala vs none on the Camry hybrid which will amount to a few thousands dollars more!

Why does Navigant predict an overwhelmingly larger number (5-7 folds) of stop-start vehicles over full hybrids by 2035? Anyone capable of simple arithmetic can see that it will pay off overwhelmingly to buy a full hybrid.

Meanwhile, a PHEV will save roughly $20,000 on fuel and maintenance cost over that of an ICEV or SSHEV at 160,000 miles and gasoline at$3.5/gallon. So, if a PHEV is priced at $10,000 over that of a comparable ICEV like it is now, after 160,000 miles, the owner of a PHEV will save roughly$10,000.

A near-future PHEV will likely be priced at only $5,000 over the price of a comparable ICEV due to the coming of 2-2-5 batteries and no trunk space compromise due to smaller size battery pack and smaller-size ICE and smaller-size fuel tank and no spare tire, the owner will save$15,000 at 160,000 mile point, yet will have a spacious and no-compromise vehicle in term of performance and internal space and cargo capacity.

Anyone having even below-normal intelligence should still be able to pick out a much more cost-effective yet much more reliable vehicle, and that will be a near-future PHEV.

Yes RP, HEVs and PHEVs already make economic sense and even more so in our area with gas at $5.11 USD/US gallon. Well, Harvey, how much are you paying for grid electricity now? I'd bet perhaps less than 12 cents USD/hr due to low-cost hydroelectric in your area. If that's the case, please kindly calculate to see how much would save at 160,000 miles if you are to buy a near-future PHEV at about$5,000 USD higher purchasing price over that of a comparable ICEV, when gasoline is $5 USD in your area? We pay only about$0.065 CAN/kWh, (about half the rate you mentionned) for clean Hydro/Wind energy. I would buy a PHEV tomorrow, but our high rise condo internal garages are not yet equipped with charging facilities and public charging stations are still too rare.

It may take another 4 to 5 years before the majority will agree to have charging facilities installed. The majority may be driving ICEVs for another 15+ years.

Our main building high voltage transformer capacity is currently used at about 25% and it could take a large extra load. However, the power distribution panels would have to be re-organized and individual 200 Amps distribution breaker panels may have to be changed. The individual new electronic meters are OK. It may be easier to keep charging facilities independent with a separate power distribution + individual meters at each parking places.

An outside consultant may evaluate and propose solutions in 2018/2020 or so. In other words, no PHEVs in our building before 2020++.

Your run-of-the-mill PHEV comes with a cord that plugs into a NEMA outlet and expects 105-125 VAC, drawing 12 amps tops.  If you can get that next to a parking spot, you're good to go.

The comments to this entry are closed.