3 ms·
The big error in your calculation is, that you calculate only the cost of the battery, but not the cost reduction of removing the most complex parts of a combus
by _ph_ 9y ago
The big error in your calculation is, that you calculate only the cost of the battery, but not the cost reduction of removing the most complex parts of a combustion engined car: the engine itself, the gearbox and the whole exhaust system including cleaning. If you calculate this in, you should come up with very different numbers - a lot of experts think, that electic cars might be even cheaper to buy in the early 20ies years.
- lafar6502 9y agoSo far electric cars cost more than ICE including this cost reduction
- _ph_ 9y agoThat is correct. Most car manufacturers currently pay way more than $100 per kWh battery capacity. Also, the electrical vehicles are made in much smaller numbers than combustion engined ones, raising production costs considerably. But for a long-term calculation, you cannot ignore the cost savings of leaving off all the combustion-related technologies. And that there are significant cost savings should be obvious.
- csours 9y agoYou are correct, it is napkin math after all. Assuming similar sales between mild hybrids and BEVs, the eventual cost of a BEV is probably only $2,000 to 3,000 more in the short term... but consumers make decisions based on differences $500 or even less. I could do some more napkin math with engineering costs, unit costs, Bills of Material and amortization schedules... but you can be assured that automakers have done more than napkin math, and they are pursuing (as an aggregate group) both technologies. The business cases for each of MHEV and BEV make different assumptions. I think it's great that different methods are being pursued. Eventually some automakers look very silly, but you can't tell which ahead of time.