A portfolio of power-trains for Europe: a fact-based analysis

Transcription

1 A portfolio of power-trains for Europe: a fact-based analysis Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking 3rd Stakeholders General Assembly Brussels, November 9, 21 Dr. Martin Linder, McKinsey & Company

2 An international industry group evaluated the potential of alternative power-trains for passenger cars in Europe Core questions How do FCEVs, BEVs, and PHEVs compare to ICEs on Cost Emissions Energy efficiency Driving performance? What are viable production and supply pathways? What are the potential market segments for the different powertrain technologies? Public launch November 8, 21

3 27 private companies, 1 NGO, and 2 GOs across the value chain performed a fact-based analyses in a clean room environment Industry participants Car OEMs Oil and gas Utilities Industrial gas companies Equipment OEMs Wind Electrolyser companies Approach and principles All relevant powertrains (ICE, BEV, PHEV, FCEV) 3 reference car segments Cost, emissions, energy efficiency, driving performance Well-to-wheel >1, company data in a clean room environment NGOs, GOs

4 Data were collected on all drive trains and at a granular level Reference vehicle Powertrains Evaluation criteria Small (A/B) ICE - gasoline ICE - diesel User economics Total cost of ownership Purchase price Running cost Payoff time Potential for biofuels not assessed. Biofuels are assumed to be blended up to 24% CO 2 reduction in 25 Power sector will gradually decarbonize from 21 to 25 Medium (C/D) PHEV Overall sustainability 1 Production Operation End-of-life Oil price slowly increasing to $119/bbl in 23 (IEA) No taxes on purchase price and fuels, no subsidies in base case SUV (J) BEV FCEV Performance No cherry picking of best data. Frozen input data before sharing results Impact of potential technology breakthroughs not included

5 Key messages Electric driving has clear benefits over the combustion engine on CO 2 and local emissions, and energy efficiency Within electric driving, battery electric vehicles are suited for urban driving small cars and shorter driving ranges Plug in hybrids and fuel cell vehicles are suitable for medium and larger cars with higher annual driving distance For this segment amounting for 5% of the fleet and 7% of the CO 2 emissions, fuel cell vehicles are an attractive low carbon solution After 225, the total cost of ownership of electric vehicles is comparable to ICEs To drive the uptake of fuel cell vehicles, significant infrastructure investments are required in the first decades (~ 3 billion up to 22 and over 4 billion up to 23 for a region like Europe)

6 Passenger car powertrain technology may move from a single powertrain (ICE) to a portfolio of powertrains C/D SEGMENT 23 Excellent Good Moderate Challenged FCEV BEV PHEV ICE Performance Environment Economics 1 1 Consumer economics can be different, dependent on tax region 2 Fast charging for BEVs implies reduced battery lifetime, lower battery load and higher infrastructure costs than included in this study SOURCE: Study analysis

7 BEVs and FCEVs can achieve significantly low CO 2 emissions, with BEVs showing limitations in driving range C/D SEGMENT CO 2 emissions gco 2 / km ICE gasoline 1 21 PHEV 25 ICE diesel BEV FCEV Low emissions and high range , 1,2 1,4 1,6 1 ICE range for 25 based on fuel economy improvement and assuming tank size stays constant. Assuming 6% CO2 reduction due to biofuels by 22; 24% by 25 SOURCE: Study analysis Range km

8 FCEVs and PHEVs are comparable to ICEs on driving performance and range C/D SEGMENT 215 Similar performance Acceleration Curb weight Differentiated performance1 Poor Top speed, km/h Excellent Payload Cargo volume Minimum starting temperature BEV PHEV ICE FCEV Range, km , 1,1 1,2 BEV PHEV ICE FCEV Refueling time, min/hr (logarithmic scale) 1 hr 5 hr 2 hr 1 hr 3 min 1 min 5 min 1 min BEV BEV 2 ICE 1 Bars represent range of performance across reference segments 2 Fast charging; implies higher infrastructure costs, reduced battery lifetime and lower battery load 3 The gas tank of a PHEV has the same refueling time as a conventional vehicle SOURCE: Study analysis PHEV PHEV 2 PHEV 3 FCEV

9 Electric vehicles are more energy efficient than ICEs over a broader range of feedstocks 22.9 ICE gasoline ICE diesel BEV 2.8 Well-to-wheel efficiency, km/mj FCV Well-to-wheel efficiency, km/kwh Oil Gas 2 Coal 3 Biomass 1 All power-trains have different performance criteria and therefore different driving missions 2 CNG used in gasoline ICE; diesel production from natural gas through Fischer-Tropsch process 3 Gasoline and diesel production from coal-to-liquids transformation through Fischer-Tropsch process SOURCE: CONCAWE-EUCAR JEC-WTW study; study analysis

10 After 225, the TCO of all powertrains converge C/D SEGMENT TCO ranges 1 of different power-train technologies EUR/km 1. FCEV BEV PHEV ICE Ranges based on data variance and sensitivities (fossil fuel prices varied by +/- 5%; learning rates varied by +/- 5%) SOURCE: Study analysis

11 BEV component costs are projected to reduce by 8% by 22 High risk as lifetime has not been proven in real-life conditions yet C/D SEGMENT BEV component cost, 21 EUR/vehicle 66,534 Glider parts 11,384 Battery % EV-specific parts 1 66,534 Total parts 77,918 Other BEVspecific parts 3 Battery lifetime km Ø Battery cost EUR/kWh , ,849 1 Including 29.7 kwh battery 2 ~1.75 batteries required over BEV lifetime in 21; ~1.1 required in 215; only cost of utilized battery lifetime is included 3 E.g., electric motor, transmission, inverter, wiring, controls, etc. SOURCE: Study analysis % 7, , Min Max 1,

12 The cost of a fuel cell system is expected to reduce by 9% by 22 EUR per fuel cell system MEA (excl. catalyst, incl. GDLs) Catalyst (incl. platinum) Structure Periphery 81, , , ~9% C/D SEGMENT Key drivers for cost reduction Innovations in design (e.g., leaving out components) Different use of materials (e.g., reduced platinum use) Innovations in production technology Economies of scale 3, ,475 4,36-42% FC stack lifetime km Platinum use g/kw Ø Fuel cell stack cost EUR/kW Min Max SOURCE: Study analysis

13 Conclusions are robust to significant variations in learning rates and the cost of fossil fuels C/D SEGMENT TCO delta between FCEV and ICE-gasoline 1 EURct/km, 23 +5% -1 iso TCO lines -2 Negative numbers relate to a TCO Advantage of FCEV over ICE Fossil fuel 2 Oil.58 EUR/litre, Gas 39 EUR/MWh Coal 88 EUR/ton % -5% % - 15% 3 +5% Learning rates after 22 1 Assuming 15 year lifetime and annual driving distance of 12, km 2 No taxes included, e.g. excise tax, CO2 tax, VAT 3 Fuel cell membranes: 15% pdc (per doubling of capacity); non-platinum catalyst: 15% pdc; FC structure: 15% pdc, EV-specific parts: 4.%/1.5% p.a.; FC periphery 4.%/1.5% p.a.; glider cost (FCEV & ICE): %; ICE basic power-train parts: %; technology packages: 1.5% p.a. SOURCE: Study analysis

14 FCEVs have a TCO advantage over BEVs and PHEVs in the larger car/long distance segments 25 EUR/year/car 1, assuming no cost of CO 2 Lowest CO 2 abatement solution TCO delta to ICE 2 <1 PHEV/BEV/FCEV Annual driving distance (1, km) 1-2 >2 FCEV A/B C/D J/M 1 Constant lifetime, but different total driving distances (9, km; 18, km; 36, km) 2 Calculated as ICE TCO minus lowest FCEV/BEV/PHEV TCO. Negative numbers indicate a TCO advantage over the ICE SOURCE: Study analysis

15 Cost of production is projected to reduce by 7% by 225, then stays relatively flat Delivered at pump, w/o taxes/excises Hydrogen cost EUR per kg Retail Distribution Production % IGCC & CG plants start to be built 1 Coverage requirement sets area and retail station density requirements for vehicle adoption SOURCE: Study analysis

16 Total capital investment for a large-scale roll-out of hydrogen supply infrastructure in Europe is estimated at EUR 1 billion over 4 years EUR millions Up to 22, FCEVs require EUR ~3 billion supply infrastructure investment for 1 million cars Retail 4,775 Distribution 4,5 Production 4, 3,5 3,922 3,581 3,363 3, 2,5 2, 1,5 2,796 2,655 1, Current annual capex requirement for the EU SOURCE: WIS Global Insight; OVUM; OECD / International Transport Forum; study analysis

17 Economic gap and infrastructure buildup require new business and funding models 25% FCEV SCENARIO Economic gap Economic gap EUR billions cumulative Economic gap of about EUR 25 billion until 22 Gap needs to be absorbed by all stakeholders Customer (price premium) OEMs (investment) Infrastructure industry (investment) Public/regulator (taxes, subsidies, incentives) Investment challenge Infrastructure investment EUR billions Infrastructure investment of about EUR 3 billion until 22 required Industry groups with different risk profiles Synchronization of industry investments required Investments need require new integrated business models 1 E.g., selling an FCEV below its cost

18 Brussels, November 9, 21