Testing Tony Seba’s EV Predictions 7 (Is China Force Feeding Its Citizens EVs?)

Let’s have a recap of where we need to be on Tony Seba’s S curve in 5 years’ time. For starters, out comes this chart again:

EVSalesto2023

From my last post, we saw that China’s State Council is targeting 2 million EV sales by 2020, and through the use of a series of central-, provincial- and city-government level carrots and sticks should get there with ease.

On Tony’s S curve, we need to register 5.6 million global EV sales to keep on track for 130 million sales by 2030; that is the logic of an S curve. This is where we stood in 2017:

GlobalNewEnergyVehicleSales2017SCMP

So if China is doing 2 million EVs in 2020, we need to find 3.6 million EV sales from the rest of the world. Given we are estimated to hit 800,000 EV sales outside China in 2018, a jump to 3.6 million in 2020 is a more than three fold increase.

But we should remember that we are at the very foothills of the S curve. If we go out a bit further to 2023, we need to see global EV sales of 22.2 million units to keep Tony’s dream alive. Now while the Chinese state has gone full Tony, we have limited evidence that it’s citizens are all completely on board with the programme.

Currently, there is a high degree of force feeding of EVs going on via state-owned enterprise procurement, the EV subsidy system and city level non-EV car registration caps. Moreover, next year the “New Energy Vehicle (NEV)” 10% incentive scheme will, in effect, force all auto makers down the EV route.

Indeed, China, as an authoritarian state, could just ban internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle sales just as many other countries have promised to do. The following table from Wikipedia shows the expressed intentions of a swathe of states and cities to ban ICE vehicles.

ListofCountriesBanningFossilFuels

Such actions, however, will not in and of themselves get us to an EV sales penetration rate of 95% by 2030, since there are a host of countries, most obviously the United States, whose political systems are not very good at pushing their citizens to do things they don’t want to do.

Nonetheless, if the Chinese consumer chooses voluntarily to buy an EV over an ICE car– rather than be forced to buy and EV over an ICE car–then this will be a far better catalyst for the wholesale global adoption of EVs. So the question then is whether Chinese auto makers can make cars that Chinese consumers want without subsidies, NEV credits, city ICE bans or whatever.

For me, the wake-up call that Chinese manufacturers were actually far further along the road toward making attractive and desirable EVs came to me, strangely, while watching a presentation by the CEO of the lithium mining company Pilbara Minerals (ticker PLS listed on the Australian Stock Exchange). in April 2018, Pilbara Minerals CEO Ken Brinsden got a coveted spot to present at the prestigious (in resource circles) Melbourne Mining Club.

The beginning of the video consists of Ken being very smug about the fact that Aussie miners can now rebrand themselves as eco warriors rather than rapists of the planet. From 11:45 into the presentation, however, Ken switches to talking about China. Given that he has been negotiating and partnering with the Chinese battery material makers for some years now, he has a unique insight into what is going on there.

The presentation slides are available here:

http://www.melbourneminingclub.com/events/luncheons/ken-brinsden-md-chief-executive-officer-pilbara-minerals/

His general overview of how fast China is moving in EVs is something I am familiar with, but 21 minutes into the presentation I got rather a shock when Ken started to talk about a particular car: the luxury SUV called the Wey made by Great Wall Motors. Now I had vaguely heard of Great Wall, but I was completely unaware that a domestic Chinese manufacturer was capable of making a prestigious EV SUV that in time will compete directly with Tesla’s Model X. In Ken’s words:

“For those of you who have a picture in your mind that the Chinese cannot build a quality outcome, I’m telling you they are already there. And as a result, they are in a very short period of time going to become the dominant global car supplier because they have got the technology right, they’ve locked up the lithium-ion supply chain, and especially the raw materials, and they are also producing the quality product.”

I would echo Ken’s remarks about looking down on the ability of any developing Asian nation to go up the value chain. I am old enough to remember as a child Japanese cars being termed “Jap crap”, just as the UK car industry was going into terminal decline. Then in the 1980s and 1990s while working in Japan I took countless meetings with senior Japanese executives who had a similar attitude towards Korean products. Panasonic telling me that Samsung products were crap, Toyota same with Hyundai, and then Nippon Steel with POSCO. Then in the 2000s, I had a ringside seat as China’s Baoshan Iron and Steel made its meteoric rise both in terms of tonnes of steel produced and the quality of the products.

The brand CEO for the Wey is Jens Streingrabber, who was responsible for SUV development at Audi, and the chief designer of the Wey hales from BMW. So build quality is something Great Wall understands. True, the first low-end Great Wall cars that have arrived upon European shores have got poor reviews (for example see here), but I would not take that as indicative of where they will remain on the quality ladder. Great Wall’s aspirations are evidenced by initiatives to incorporate Level 5 autonomous driving capability and contactless charging in future Wey models. You can see a pure high-end Wey X EV at the April 2018 Beijing motor show here.

True, the Wey X on display at Beijing was a concept car, but full production versions of EV versions of Wey SUVs and Great Wall’s new pure EV brand ORA are on their way. And these are just part of a wave of EV disruption that is set to come out of China. I’ll spend one more post looking at the Chinese EV auto maker ecosystem across all the major makers,  and the potential for Chinese EV makers to act as the mega disruptors, then it will be time to talk about Tesla.

For those of you coming to this series of posts midway, here is a link to the beginning of the series.

 

Testing Tony Seba’s EV Predictions 6 (China Plays Leapfrog)

In 2012, China’s State Council (China’s central government policy-making body) issued a plan with the snappy title “Energy-saving and new energy vehicles industry development planning (2012- 2020)”. It reiterated the target of having 5 million new energy vehicles (NEVs, which includes fuel cells and EVs) on China’s roads by 2020, but backed the mission statement up with a swathe of incentives. The table below is taken from a report by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT).

 

ChinaEVSubsidies

 

So let’s annotate the above table a bit. BEV stands for battery electric vehicles, PHEV for plus-in hybrid electric vehicles. BD refers to the minimum battery-energy density measured in watt/hours per kilogram and ER relates to the minimum electric range of a vehicle in kilometres. At the current exchange rate of roughly 6.4 Chinese yuan to a US dollar, a subsidy of CNY10,000 is approximately US$1,500. So if a maker sells an EV with a minimum range of between 100k and 150k, the Chinese government will give that maker a subsidy of $3,900. Note that unlike many other such subsidy schemes worldwide, the subsidy goes to the manufacturer not the end purchaser.

Another point to note is that since the subsidy scheme was introduced, the minimum BD and ER criteria have been gradually raised, so forcing auto makers to constantly upgrade their EV product if they want to remain beneficiaries of the subsidies.

Two years after the original plan was unveiled, the Harvard Kennedy School of Government came out with a very damning report on China’s EV strategy. If you have ever sat down in a bar or pub next to a petrol head who believes that the height of sexual satisfaction is watching an old episode of Top Gear with Jeremy Clarkson you would get the gist:

  • Cars too expensive as battery costs too high
  • Range anxiety will kill demand
  • Can’t drive cross country as no charging infrastructure
  • If EVs succeed, utilities will need to burn more dirty coal to generate electricity so worsening air quality and CO2 emissions

The report also pointed out two China specific issues:

  • China car industry far too fragmented to support EV push
  • Trade and direct investment barriers to foreign entrants prevents major global auto makers (with better technology) supporting the plan

The Harvard report basically poured a bucket of cold sick over the “Energy-saving and new energy vehicles industry development planning (2012- 2020)” initiative:

“In mid-2013, China had only about 40,000 EVs on the road, more than 80% of which were public fleet vehicles (e.g. taxis and buses). China EV incentives face the same challenges as the rest of the world: high battery costs, long charging times, and no obvious business model for charging infrastructure. But domestic barriers loom even larger. The country has a weak domestic auto sector, counterproductive trade barrier, a balkanized subsidy and infrastructure program, and uncertainty over standards and technology.”

The author was also happy to take a pop at the New York Times journalist Thomas Friedman along the way (since Friedman has got the Tony Seba religion):

“The idea that electric vehicles for private and public use could allow China to leapfrog the internal combustion engine (ICE) and build a clean, high-tech transpiration system was a compelling vision. In 2010, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote: “It will be a moon shot for them, a hobby for us, and you’ll import your new electric car from China just like you’re now importing your oil from Saudi Arabia.” Despite Friedman’s forecast, China remains a long way from meeting its ambitious goals.”

Time to repeat a chart from yesterday’s post:
GlobalNewEnergyVehicleSales2017SCMP

So China has gone from 44,000 EVs on the road in mid 2013 to an estimate of around 2.5 million at the end of 2018. To reach 5 million EV sales at the end of 2020 would require sales growth of less than 50% in 2019 and 2020. It really doesn’t look that difficult. Against the backdrop of these numbers, the Harvard-Kennedy study conclusion looks, well, embarrassing:

“In addition to the unexpectedly difficult infrastructure challenge, it seems the Chinese government was over-optimistic about the technological capacity of China’s domestic automakers. It overestimated the amount of technology transfer that foreign firms had imparted on their domestic JV partners. An absence of data in the Chinese policy making process helps explain why basic driver in the Chinese vehicle market, as well as more tangible issues such as battery costs, were poorly understood.”

Well they must have done something right to have already become the most vibrant and dominant EV market in the world.

On top of this, the Chinese state has recently added a very nasty stick to its tasty subsidy carrot in the form of a zero-emission vehicle credit system for auto manufacturers. The details of this scheme can be found here. It’s certainly complicated, but basically the idea is that every auto maker in China must sell a certain percentage of its vehicles that meet a range of EV standards. Auto makers get credits for those vehicles they sell that meet the necessary EV standards. But if they don’t get enough “New Energy Vehicle” (NEV) credits they can then buy them in from other companies who are more fully committed to the EV programme (and as such have surplus credits).

Imagine a race where all the contestants are forced to run with weights. Subsidies allow the EV contestants to run with lighter weights. Conversely, an NEV credit system means that that non EV internal combustion engine contestants have additional weights attached to their legs.

Moreover, the scheme is quite clever in that it forces Chinese ICE reliant makers to, in effect, subsidise and support aggressive EV makers.

Such positive and negative incentives have consequences; and the Chinese auto makers have responded accordingly. That is the topic of my next post.

 For those of you coming to this series of posts midway, here is a link to the beginning of the series.

Testing Tony Seba’s EV Predictions 5 (The View from China)

In my last post we looked at the Big 6 automakers and their somewhat panicky strategy decisions over the last 6 months to fast forward EV capital expenditure and model  roll-outs.

Teasing out the causation behind this step change in attitudes to EVs is not easy. Could it be the FoMO (fear of missing out)  response to Volkswagen’s decision to go full EV via its “Roadmap E” plan (which sees VW’s entire model line-up available as EVs by 2030)? And was VW’s action, in turn, founded on the realisation that Tesla was moving down the food chain into the mass-market saloon segment with the Model 3? Personally, I don’t think either factor is the key catalyst in causing the attitudinal shift. For me it is China. And what is going in China is posing an existential threat to all the Western based auto makers. So what’s so special about China? Well:

  • China is the largest auto market in the world, 60% bigger than the US at number 2.
  • The Chinese auto market is growing faster than any developed nation’s auto market.
  • The Chinese government has made the shift to EVs a national strategic priority.
  • China’s EV market is the largest in the world, more than the rest of the world put together.
  • The Chinese EV market is dominated by local producers; Tesla, Nissan, VW and GM are nowhere to be seen.
  • China has a suite of new entrant disruptors with no ICE legacy business to protect.
  • The large incumbents with strong ICE sales are pivoting toward EVs at breakneck speed helped by access to almost unlimited pools of financial capital under China’s public-private system of capital allocation.

A couple of charts to illustrate these point (Source: here):

GlobalCarandLCVSales

And here:

GlobalNewEnergyVehicleSales2017SCMP

Then there is the fact that China has become the world’s battery behemoth. Batteries will get a number of posts dedicated to them in due course, but until then here is a taste of China’s positioning in the battery ecosystem:

  • China is buying up battery metal resources across the globe (or locking major battery metal miners into long-term supply contracts).
  • China dominates the production of electrode powders that are fabricated into cathode and anode components.
  • China has a web of component manufacturers covering cathode, anode, separator and electrolyte production.
  • China has the largest battery cell maker in the world, CATL, plus another 4 in the top 10: BYD, Guoxuan High-Tech, Tianjin Lishen and Optimum Battery.
  • CATL is also the world’s largest producer of lithium-ion battery modules, with BYD and Lishen also in the top 10.

Critically, the strength and depth of the Chinese battery food chain has resulted in every major non-Chinese battery overseas manufacturer getting involved in battery fabrication operations in China as well. This includes Tesla, LG Chem, Samsung and Panasonic.

The slides below are from the an investor presentation by the Australian lithium miner Kidman Resources. The aggregate numbers show battery production growing 6-fold between 2016 and 2020, and China dominates the market:

ChinaBatterySector

 

ChinaIsLeadingtheCharge

If Tony Seba is right and internal combustion engine fabrication will be an irrelevance by 2030, it will be a story made in China. Next post the Chinese government’s EV strategy and the Chinese auto makers’ response.

For those of you coming to this series of posts midway, here is a link to the beginning of the series.

 

 

Testing Tony Seba’s EV Predictions 4 (FoMO with the Big 6)

Let’s start with a chart from my last post. I’ve relabelled it to read ‘sales capacity’ adds rather than ‘production capacity’ adds just because we can then tack the time series on to the existing EV sales numbers we have for the last few years as reported by EVvolumes.com. In reality, there is a lag between leaving the factory and delivery to the customer, but given this is less than a year, I think it can be safely ignored.

 

EVSalesCapacityAdds

 

In the chart below I add a bit of texture so you can see some numbers (rounded to the nearest 100k) for total sales and sales additions both historically and projected into the future based upon my Tony Seba central scenario S curve:

EVSalesto2023

I’ve gone only as far as 2023 since we should be able to see evidence of action being taken now in order to obtain outcomes then.

To give you a sense of the development process, below is a fascinating presentation by Alex Patterson of Nissan showing you how to get from sketch to production for a new version of the Qashqai. What jumps out at me from this video is that the whole complex process only took three and a half years!

Now let’s do some bottom-up work. I’m going to do this by looking at the EV strategic intentions with respect to two main categories of auto maker:

  • The major motor manufacturers (VW, GM, Toyota, Hyundai, etc)
  • The disruptors (Tesla, BYD, SAIC, Geely, etc)

The Major Motor Manufacturers

A good starting point to this analysis is to take a look at the latest global market share of auto sales by maker to identify the big guys. The International Organisation of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA) publishes just such data, albeit with a lag. The latest release is for market share as of 2016 as can be seen here (2017 numbers are not out yet):

GlobalAutoSalesMarketShare

And because we are also interested in how many cars were actually sold, here is the same chart looking at those unit numbers.

GlobalAutoSalesUnits

So from my top charts, we were looking for 14 million EV sales in 2023 for Tony’s S curve, which also translates into 5 million units in additional capacity that year. Those numbers compare with Big 6 sales of between 5 and 10 million units per annum.

Next, let’s look at the declared intentions of the top six global auto manufacturers.

Toyota 

Toyota has been sparring with Volkswagen for the title as world’s number one motor manufacturer for the past few years. When it comes to sustainability, it is well know for its investment in hybrid technology via the Prius and also for pioneering hydrogen fuel cells through the Mirai, but the company has been a laggard when it comes to pure battery electric vehicles (BEVs). Indeed, the company previously pushed the benefits of hybrids far more than pure EVs.

On 18 December 2018, however, the company announced a dramatic change of direction  (press release here) when it stated that it was targeting 5.5 million EV sales by 2030, of which 1 million would be pure BEVs (not hybrids).

The shift away from ICE to EVs was made stark by this statement:

“Additionally, by around 2025, every model in the Toyota and Lexus line-up around the world will be available either as a dedicated electrified model or have an electrified option. This will be achieved by increasing the number of dedicated HEV, PHEV, BEV, and FCEV models and by generalizing the availability of HEV, PHEV and/or BEV options to all its models.

As a result, the number of models developed without an electrified version will be zero.”

And the R&D commitment to battery technology was unequivocal:

“Batteries are a core technology of electrified vehicles and generally present limitations relating to energy density, weight/packaging, and cost. Toyota has been actively developing next-generation solid-state batteries and aims to commercialize the technology by the early 2020s. In addition, Toyota and Panasonic will start a feasibility study on a joint automotive prismatic battery business in order to achieve the best automotive prismatic battery in the industry and to ultimately contribute to the popularization of Toyota’s and other automakers’ electrified vehicles.”

The commitments by Toyota don’t get us anywhere close to Tony Seba’s 95% EV penetration target in 2030, nor do they accelerate us up the S curve near term. But the central core of Seba’s analysis is that incumbents find it exceedingly difficult to counter disruptive technology since they are loath to junk past sunk costs in the old technology (in Toyota’s case also a bridge technology in hybrids). Indeed, every single one of Tony’s presentations has Kodak’s death at the hands of digital photography at the front of the slide deck pushing this point.

In this light, Toyota’s press release can perhaps be seen as reactive rather than proactive. And while Toyota has admitted that there exists a threat from pure EV, their response is measured when compared with arch-rival Volkswagen.

Volkswagen

Wind back two months from Toyota’s press release and you come to Volkswagen’s unveiling of “Roadmap E” on 17 September 2017 (press release here). It leads off with this:

“The Volkswagen Group is launching the most comprehensive electrification initiative in the global automotive industry with its “Roadmap E”: Volkswagen will have electrified its entire model portfolio by 2030 at the latest. This means that, by then, there will be at least one electrified version of each of the 300 or so Group models across all brands and markets.”

And this was written by Matthias Muller, Chairman of the VW Board (not by Tony Seba):

“The transformation in our industry is unstoppable.”

Unlike with Toyota, we have a nice big solid number to stick on Tony’s S curve:

“The Company estimates that around one in four new Group vehicles – up to three million units a year depending on how the market develops – could already be purely battery-powered in 2025.”

In my former industry finance it was always a good idea to follow the money to find incipient trends. In this regard, VW’s press release gives us a lot of money to follow:

  • $20 billion in direct investments in industrialisation of e-mobility
  • $50 billion of battery procurement tenders
  • Setting up of in-house battery production lines
  • Gearing up for next generation solid state batteries

It seems VW has decided to go ‘all-in’ with the EV game. Is this an incumbent showing  enough flexibility to survive? We shall see.

Hyundai

Like Honda and Toyota, Hyundai (and it’s subsidiary Kia Motors) has been somewhat lagging on the electrification of its line-up due to an ongoing commitment to hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Responding to the aggressive plans announced by Toyota and VW, however, Hyundai announced a $22 billion investment in electric cars in January 2018 and that a new line-up of 31 models by 2020 and 38 models by 2025 . There doesn’t appear to be a specific press release related to their “Clean Mobility” strategy plan, but you can find details in one of Hyundai’s investor presentations here.

No EV sales targets have been announced as of this time.

General Motors

The three emblems of the rebirth of the EV have been Tesla’s Model S, the Nissan Leaf and G.M.’s Chevrolet Volt. Yet until October 2nd, 2017, G.M.’s commitment to the EV space appeared half-hearted due to its meagre model line-up. That all changed with this press release.

“General Motors announced today how it is executing on a major element of its vision of a world with zero crashes, zero emissions and zero congestion, recently announced by GM Chairman and CEO Mary Barra.

“General Motors believes in an all-electric future,” said Mark Reuss, General Motors executive vice president of Product Development, Purchasing and Supply Chain. “Although that future won’t happen overnight, GM is committed to driving increased usage and acceptance of electric vehicles through no-compromise solutions that meet our customers’ needs.”

In the next 18 months, GM will introduce two new all-electric vehicles based off learnings from the Chevrolet Bolt EV. They will be the first of at least 20 new all-electric vehicles that will launch by 2023.”

Like VW, GM appears to have got the EV religion.

 Ford

In May 2017 Ford got a new CEO Jim Hackett whose brief was to prepare the company for a completely reconfigured marketplace. The incoming CEO’s  first strategy announcement in October 2017 was short on detail apart from a commitment to aggressive cost cutting. The forward-looking ideas vaguely centred around a smart car agenda, with the China market playing a key role. The most detail we got on EVs was this:

“The company recently announced a dedicated electrification team within Ford focused exclusively on creating an ecosystem for products and services for electric vehicles and the unique opportunities they provide. “

In January 2018, however, we got more meat when Ford’s Chairman Bill Ford announced the following measures:

  • 16 fully electric vehicles to be added to line-up by 2022
  • 40 fully or partially electrified vehicles to launch over that time frame
  • Investment in EVs to rise from $4.5 billion to $11 billion

In an important move necessary to increase EV penetration, Ford also explained how electrification of existing SUVs and pick-up was to take place, making this comment to Reuters.

“If we want to be successful with electrification, we have to do it with vehicles that are already popular.”

Nissan 

Rather than a standalone company, Nissan can best be thought of as part of the Nissan-Renault-Mitsubishi Motors alliance. As such the group taken together could be viewed as the largest auto maker in the world.

Rather like GM with the Volt, however, Nissan has been somewhat slow to take the technology from its breakout product the Leaf and apply it across its product range. Again I can hear Tony’s voice talking about the lack of ability of incumbents to disrupt their own businesses even when they are leaders in the technology driving the disruption.

But completing our orgy of announcements from the Big 6, Nissan has suddenly decided to aggressively play catch-up with a commitment to sell 1 million EV cars a year by 2022. The March 23rd press release is here and the “M.O.V.E. to 2022 Plan” has these goals:

  • Develop eight new pure electric vehicles, building on the success of the new Nissan LEAF
  • Launch an electric car offensive in China under different brands
  • Introduce an electric “kei” mini-vehicle in Japan
  • Offer a global crossover electric vehicle, inspired by the Nissan IMx Concept
  • Electrify new INFINITI models from fiscal year 2021
  • Equip 20 models in 20 markets with autonomous driving technology
  • Reach 100% connectivity for all new Nissan, Infiniti and Datsun cars sold in key markets by the end of the plan

Conclusion 

The strategy announcements are different in texture and difficult to to compare, but they have elements in common:

  1. A broadening of electrification across the product range
  2. The acceleration of EV model roll outs to the early 2020s
  3. A tidal wave of money going into the EV space
  4. A massive recommitment to EV R&D, particularly with respect to batteries
  5. Not one mention of any new initiative with respect to ICE technology
  6. Lots of FoMO (fear of missing out)
  7. And lots of plain FEAR (It seems that VW’s September 2017 strategy announcement has scared the crap out of VW’s competitors, and their strategic ripostes have been tumbling out one after another since then.)

Moreover, if we assume that the battery materials, battery cells and battery modules will be available to make the cars (I’ll come back to those issues in later posts), the Big 6 makers have the intention to try to sell EVs across every model segment. Thus, on the supply side of Tony Seba’s forecast, the big guys intend to play a major part. Of course, just because you can make an EV, it doesn’t mean anyone will buy it. But that is the demand side, which I also want to leave for later.

Rather, for my next post I want to look at the disruptors. How much money can they raise, how many factories can they build, how many EVs can they sell. To date, Tesla sales are really just a rounding error in terms of total global auto sales. Will that change? And, then there are the Chinese.

For those of you coming to this series of posts midway, here is a link to the beginning of the series.

 

Testing Tony Seba’s EV Predictions 3 (Fleshing Out the S Curve)

In my last posts, I have been trying to quantify Tony Seba’s assertion that “essentially no internal combustion engines will be produced after 2030”. Further, we looked at the broad outline of what the required sales trajectory would need be to take electric vehicle (EVs) penetration rates from 1.3% in 2017 to 95% in 2030.

In this post I want to hang some vehicle numbers onto this outline shape. So to start with, we need to determine how many vehicles are being sold today. Various public organisations and private companies put out slightly different numbers, but I have chosen the stats released by the International Organisation of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (which goes under the abbreviation OICA derived from its name in French).

OICA data show that 97 million vehicles were sold in 2017, consisting of 71 million passenger cars and 26 million commercial vehicles. The recent sales trend looks like this (you can find the chart here):

OICAVehicleSales

These numbers allow us to do a quick fact check with respect to the chart put together by EVvolumes.com at the bottom of my last post. That chart had a total of 1,281,000 EVs sold in 2017 with am EV market share of 1.3%. Put their EV sales number over OICA’s 97 million and we do get 1.3%. Good!

Note we are talking about total vehicle sales. Tony has been full on with his bet, forecasting the demise of the complete ICE vehicle infrastructure. Not for him, wimping out and restricting his argument to passenger cars. So all those trucks, lorries and vans have to go EV too.

In later posts, I will start to slice the data more finely to stress test his forecast, and that will require us to look a vehicle segments, geographical penetration and manufacturer commitment to EV production, but for now let’s just stay with the top line.

Nonetheless, we do need one further tweak before we can attach a number to what 95% sales penetration by EVs in 2030 actually looks like. Obviously, global auto sales are growing, so we are not looking at 95% of 97 million. Accordingly, we need the annual average growth rate in auto sales through to 2030 before we can come up with our EV target.

As a ranging shot, let’s just take the average annual growth rate in global vehicle sales between 2005 and 2017 from the OICA chart above. So I’ve just plugged those numbers into a compound growth rate calculator on the internet to get 3.87% annual growth. Using the 3.87% number, we can then plug that back into a future value calculator and go forward to 2030. A growth rate of 3.87% doesn’t sound much, but the magic of compounding changes 97 million vehicle sales to 159 million vehicle sales by 2030. The bar has been raised for Tony: EV sales now need to go from 1.3 million in 2017 to 159 million in 2030. That’s 122 times!

Nonetheless, we probably need to adjust for a decline in auto sales in China as the market gets more saturated, although India, South America and Africa could start to pick up the growth baton in future.

Moreover, a close reading of Tony’s book “Clean Disruption” suggests that the advent of driverless cars on our roads will dramatically change the pattern of car ownership. Tony is big on “Transport as a Service”, so fewer and fewer people will want to actually own a car when they can tap on a phone app to get the use of one almost instantly.

Even if you don’t believe that autonomous vehicles will pass safety standards for many years to come, app-led transport services like Uber and Lift make car ownership less attractive, particularly for urban dwellers. The decline of driving licence ownership among younger adults in the US and Europe is evidence of this.

In 2016, McKinsey issued a report that incorporated such technological-related disruptions into a macro economic forecast. Their ‘high disruption’ scenario sees 15% of new car sales being autonomous vehicles by 2030. Based on this scenario and other trends in car sharing and so on, they came up with 115 million vehicle sales in 2030 (a 2.45% annual growth rate).

AutoSales2030McKinsey

At this stage, it is worth stressing that the choice of vehicle sales figure for 2030 is a question of subjective judgment. The range of macro economic and technology related variables make a more quantitative approach facile. So let’s split the high vehicle growth scenario of 159 million vehicles and the McKinsey high-disruption scenario of 115 vehicles to arrive at 137 million forecast vehicle sales in 2030. Now Tony is looking for 95% of this number, which is 130 million. So we can plug the 130 million number into the S curve from my previous post and we get this:

ElectricVehicleSalesMillions

It looks like not much is happening until around 2024 in terms of high year-on-year jumps in units sold, but that hides some pretty stunning year-on-year growth rates.

%GrowthRateEVSales

Are those growth rates completely mad? Well let’s compare them with recent year growth rates in a chart from my previous post:

EVVolumes.com

So apart from 2016, the EV sector has been achieving growth rates in and around 60% per annum. So it looks tough, but not completely crazy. Next, let’s look at how much additional capacity needs to come on line each year to support those forecast sales.

AdditonalAnnualProductionCapacity

This chart allows us to stress test Tony’s from the supply side. Additional production capacity for the EV final product requires production capacity adds right down the supply chain. So to add 0.8 million units of EV capacity in 2018; 1.3 million in 2019; 2.1 million units in 2020, 3.4 million units in 2021 and 5.3 million units in 2022 requires huge ongoing investment in metal mining (lithium, cobalt, graphite, etc), battery cells, battery assemblies and additional vehicle manufacturing lines and factories.

So for my next post we will just assume that the end-user demand is there. If so, are the miners and manufacturers capable of delivering the capacity adds? Let’s see.

For those of you coming to this series of posts midway, here is a link to the beginning of the series.

Testing Tony Seba’s EV Predictions 2 (Setting Out the S Curve)

In my last post, I explained Tony Seba’s basic thesis as follows: he forecasts the complete transformation of the world’s entire transport and energy infrastructure by the year 2030. And while, Tony stopped there, I surmised that this disruption, if it takes place, will extend into every aspect of the social sciences. Indeed, for those like me who sometimes despair at the state of the planet, his forecasts could even prove a ray of hope with respect to the wicked problem of climate change. I don’t think it is hyperbole to say that such a transformation would be politically, socially and economically revolutionary.

At the heart of Tony’s thesis is the S curve: the idea that the adoption of technology follows an S curve consisting of three distinct phases: a gradual uptake, explosive growth and then a tapering off. His book “Clean Disruption” doesn’t really touch on the S Curve, but in his presentations this issue is front and centre. I highly recommend you watch the section of the video below from 7:50 through to 9:45 minutes.

This is the heart of his argument:

“No technology in history, successful technology, in history, that I know of have ever been adopted on a linear basis, ever. It gets adopted as an S curve.”

And Tony posits that S curves are getting steeper, with saturation points reached in years not decades as shown by the almost vertical lines for the most recent technology adoptions.

Adoption Rates

Therefore, if Tony is wrong, it will be with respect to whether EV adoption follows an S curve and what shape that S curve will take. OK, let’s start by fitting an S curve to Tony’s following prediction:

There may still be millions of older gasoline cars and trucks on the road. Ten- to twenty year old cars are still on the road today. We may even see niche markets like Cuba where 50-year old cars are the norm. But essentially no internal combustion engines will be produced after 2030.

Now an S curve has four parameters; that is, variables that control is shape. Bear with me: it is actually quite intuitive. More formally, an S curve is produced by a logistic function, which you can see examples of here).

From the chart below, we have the starting point ‘a’: in our case EV sales as a percentage of total global car sales, which in 2017 was 1.3% (I’ll come back to that number). We also have an ending point ‘d’. Now Tony says “essentially no internal combustion engines will be produced in 2030”. I have taken that to mean 95% of new sales in 2030 will be EV.

The inflection point ‘c’ relates to whether the growth will be front-end loaded into the beginning of the forecast period, or more back-end loaded into the end of the forecast period (or somewhere in the middle). Generally, it’s easier to ramp up production at the beginning, since you have fewer resource constraints.

Finally, we have ‘b’ the steepness of the curve. That really tells us whether all the growth is concentrated into a short burst; in the adaption curves at the top of the post, those curves which in effect go vertical, like that for digital cameras, have a high value for ‘b’.

SCurveParameters

Now because we can produce different curves to get from 1.3% penetration in 2017 to 95% penetration in 2030 it may take a little time to prove whether Tony is right or wrong in his projections. But by inspecting the shape of the curves, we can start to discern which of them are completely barking mad and which are mildly ambitious. So I will start with a curve that I have rustled up in Excel as the base-case scenario:

Seba Central Scenario

Under this curve, we start with a penetration rate of 1.3% in 2017 and end with one of 94% in 2030, with 50% penetration reached in 2025. Note that it takes 6 years to go from 20% penetration in 2022 to 80% penetration in 2028. Next, let’s increase parameter ‘b’ and get the curve to stand up.

SebaHyperGrowthSecenario

This is pretty damn aggressive. Tony is doing his victory lap in 2025 and the move from 20% to 80% penetration has taken all of four years. That is a lot of lithium, a lot of battery cells, a lot of battery units and a lot of EVs to bring on stream in short period of time. But note we could take that graph and shift it 5 years to the right. Under that scenario, Tony would still have bragging rights in 2030, but the curve would not go vertical until around 2025.

Now I am going to make the growth period a bit less manic in the middle, with a longer run-up by increasing the value of ‘a’.

SlowRampUpScenario

Now Tony gets to 95% one year late (I think we should be generous enough to give him that). Further, the EVs take over the world period (from 20% to 80%) now takes place between 2024 to 2029.

OK, time for some real numbers. Here are global EV sales and penetration rates from EVvolumes.com (as you can see, this is where I get my 1.3% starting penetration rate from in 2017).

EVVolumes.com

This adds a couple of new dimensions to our analysis: unit sales of EVs per year and year-on-year percentage growth rates. Keeping unit sales and growth rates in mind, we can take the theoretical underpinnings and parameters of Tony Seba’s EV S-curves, and attach just such real-world numbers onto the curves and see if they look sane. That will be the topic of my next post.

For those of you coming to this series of posts midway, here is a link to the beginning of the series.

Testing Tony Seba’s EV Predictions 1 (Spring Is Coming)

You should have an opinion on Tony Seba,  He is someone not to be ignored because the upcoming technological change he predicts is so important. Indeed, if he is right, everything is about to change. So if you aren’t aware of his take on where the world is going, I highly recommend you watch one of his videos (for example here).

Tony’s PowerPoint presentation and pitch hasn’t actually changed much over the last four years. Indeed, if you click through his YouTube presentations from a variety of events, you get a distinct feeling of deja vu. But perhaps, like a modern-day Messiah, Tony feels the need to deliver just one central message:

“Get ready for a technological disruption that will dwarf all those that have gone before.”

His first book “Winner Takes all” is a typical airport self-improvement shopping list for the wannabe tech CEO, but then came “Clean Disruption” in 2014.  In this, Tony broadened his range to encompass, well, everything. The tag line on the front cover says it all:

“How Silicon Valley will make oil, nuclear, natural gas, coal and conventional cars obsolete by 2030.”

While this industrial disruption is epic, the follow-on implications for urbanisation, climate change, geopolitics, development, growth, wealth and inequality are just as mind-blowing. Thankfully, Tony didn’t run with those themes too, but it doesn’t take much of an imagination to extrapolate out from his conclusions into a broad variety of social and political domains.

So this is what he says will happen by 2030:

  • Solar will become the dominant form of energy production
  • Centralised electric utility companies will be in retreat and the price of electricity will plummet
  • Electric vehicles will replace internal combustion engine vehicles
  • Cars will become self-driving and individual car ownership will collapse
  • Nuclear is dead
  • Oil is dead
  • Natural gas is dead
  • Biofuels are dead
  • Coal is dead

Wow! Moreover, this book was written in 2014, and given it’s now 2018, that means we only have 12 more years to go! That sounds ridiculously ambitious, if not ludicrous. Nonetheless, Tony always includes a pair of photos to tackle such doubts. Here is a picture of New York in 1900:

Where Is the Car? jpeg

And here is a picture of the same street in 1913, 12 years later:

Where Is the Horse? jpeg

You have to respect Tony for one thing: he has given us a testable hypothesis. In times gone by, futurologists were careful to either give a specific numerical forecast, or a specific date for a vague non-numerical forecast — but never a specific numeral forecast with a specific date attached.

If such strategists were “doing a Tony”, they would have said everything will change in 2030, but not specify how much it will change; or, things will change by X amount, but not when such change would take place. By so doing, an erroneous forecast could always be dumped without too much reputational risk.

No such intellectual cowardice for Tony. Here is just one example of his forthright approach to forecasting, from page 127:

“There may still be millions of older gasoline cars and trucks on the road. Ten- to twenty-year-old cars are still on the road today. We may even see niche markets like Cuba where 50-year old cars are the norm. But essentially no internal combustion engines will be produced after 2030. Oil will also be obsolete by then.”

To make things manageable, I am going to pick off his forecasts in bite-sized chunks and see how they are doing from when they were first floated back in 2014. To put that in perspective, we are already 25% through Tony’s original forecast horizon.

Let’s  start with the above quote surrounding electric vehicles, not least because Tony set out a variety of milestones back in 2014 that should show us whether we are on our way to his EV nirvana. The first of these relates to S curves, which will be the topic of my next post.

I’m Back with Bad News and Good News

Well, the emergence from hibernation took some time (it’s a long story). So since I’ve been away, let’s firstly start by depressing everyone with four charts from the excellent and scary NASA’s “Vital Signs of the Planet”:

GlobalTemp

Not forgetting this:

CO2\

Plus this:

SeaLevel

And of course this:

LandIceAntarctica

Also for Arctic sea ice extent, below is how we have started the current melt season (hint: not good), from National Snow and Ice Data Center):

ArcticSeaIceExtent

So am I totally depressed (it seems an occupational hazard for anyone paying attention to climate change these days, see here)? While the above charts do not fill me with joy, I will finish this new post (after a very long time away) with something a bit more upbeat: batteries.

Now in prior posts, I was a little bit skeptical about the battery revolution. But that was in 2015 and it is now 2018.

The evangelist of the great battery nirvana is Tony Seba, who sees EVs plus battery storage as the next great disruption: a disruption so massive that it will eclipse the computer and compete with the coming of the railways and the spread of electrification.

Being a grumpy old Brit, I was somewhat cynical about Tony and his PowerPoint battery slide deck. But, to repeat, that was 2015 and this is 2018. And after doing a deep dive into battery material miners over the last few month, I feel I may have been a tiny bit wrong and Tony a tiny bit right. Quite how wrong I was and how right he is I have yet to fathom. So for my return to blogging, we are going to go ‘full on’ battery nerd for a while. So it is Battery Banter Redux folks.

For those of you who think this is all tech ‘blah’, I actually disagree. In fact, I think batteries hold the key as to whether we can constrain climate change to around two degree of warming (give or take a bit), or the dystopian three and up. So I will finish this post with what I think is a very upbeat chart from a company called Nemaska Lithium. And in future posts I am going to explain why I don’t think this chart is barking mad (in fact it could be conservative) and why, if true, it will change everything.

LithiumMarket

 

Back from Hibernation

Well, it’s two years since I have posted on this blog. Since then,  I have dealt with death, divorce and disease on the personal front. Apologies for the silence: when you are being emotionally clubbed over the head, then you lack the bandwidth to write.

Meanwhile, the replacement of man by machine has continued apace, Arctic sea ice extent is flirting with new lows (so climate change remains the spectre at the feast) and commodities have demonstrated abundance not scarcity. Politics and economics, the two loves of my life, are all over the place. The science of well-being evolves, but the political establishment generally looks back for truths instead of forward.

Individuals aware of the existential threats to the existing order wrestle over whether to retreat into a narrow, local world (look inward) or challenge the existing orthodoxies (look outward).

So, yes, we are living though interesting times. Technology as Diamandis and Kotler’s biblical ‘abundance’ or Kunstler’s technology as false magic. We may be sitting on an exponential curve of technology, but we are certainly sitting on a similar curve of climate change. And all this is taking place against a backdrop of political, economic, legal and social institutions designed for the 1900s. A lot to talk about.

Data Watch: UAH Global Mean Temperature, June 2015 Release

On July 6th, Dr Roy Spencer released the University of Alabama-Huntsville (UAH) global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly as measured by satellite for June 2015 (here). The anomaly refers to the difference between the current temperature reading and the average reading for the period 1981 to 2010 as per satellite measurements.

June 2015: Anomaly +0.33 degrees Celsius This is the 3rd warmest June temperature recorded since the satellite record was started in December 1978 (36 June observations). The warmest June to date over this period was in 1998, with an anomaly of +0.56 degrees Celsius. Full data set available here (click for larger image).

UAH Global Temp July 2015 jpeg

The El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle is the main determinant of new temperature records over the medium term (up to 30 years) . The U.S. government’s Climate Prediction Centre currently has an El Nino advisory in effect and is forecasting that the current El Nino event is set to continue through into 2016 (update 9 July 2015 here):

Overall, there is a greater than 90% chance that El Niño will continue through Northern Hemisphere winter 2015-16, and around an 80% chance it will last into early spring 2016.

Given this background, I would expect the UAH anomalies to remain elevated for some time.

As background, five major global temperature time series are collated by different international agencies: three land-based and two satellite-based. The terrestrial readings are from NASA GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies), HadCRU (Hadley Centre/Climate Research Unit in the U.K.), and NCDC (National Climate Data Center). The lower-troposphere temperature satellite readings are from RSS (Remote Sensing Systems, data not released to the general public) and UAH (Univ. of Alabama at Huntsville).

The most high profile satellite-based series is put together by UAH and covers the period from December 1978 to the present. Like all these time series, the data is presented as an anomaly (difference) from the average, with the average in this case being the 30-year period from 1981 to 2010. UAH data is the earliest to be released each month.

One of the initial reasons for publicising this satellite-based data series was due to concerns over the accuracy of terrestrial-based measurements (worries over the urban heat island effect and other factors). The satellite data series have now been going long enough to compare the output directly with the surface-based measurements. All the time series are now accepted as telling the same story (for a fuller mathematical treatment of this, see Tamino’s post at the Open Mind blog here). Note that the anomalies produced by different organisations are not directly comparable since they have different base periods. Accordingly, to compare them directly, you need to normalise each one by adjustment to a common base period.