Consulting Group: Beware of Electric Car Costs

President Barack Obama announced the next steps to help General Motors and Chrysler Monday—after about six weeks of deliberations by the president’s auto task force. One of the advisors to the task force, the Boston Consulting Group, recently issued a report, “The Comeback of the Electric Car?” Editor Bradley Berman spoke with Xavier Mosquet, the lead author of the report. His views might reveal how fuel efficiency, hybrids and electric cars could play a role in the car manufacturers’ recovery efforts.

General Motors and Chrysler have both used plans for electric cars, in various stages of development, as evidence of an ability to turn the companies around and to demonstrate technology leadership. While it’s uncertain how the task force is responding to BCG’s guidance, the consulting group is clearly skeptical about the business case for electric cars.

Bradley Berman: There’s been a lot of recent news and excitement about electric cars, despite the current environment of low gas prices. What message do you think the consumer is taking?

Xavier Mosquet: I think consumers are saying, “This is great. I want a cheap, long-range, comfortable, electric vehicle.” What nobody is telling these people is the true additional cost of an electric vehicle. Unfortunately, this is far higher than people will be able to afford. I’m not suggesting that we should not do some of it. But the environment is clearly not set for big development of electric vehicles.

In your forecast, under the most likely scenario for the North American new car market in 2020, you have 29 percent as either hybrids and plug-in hybrids, with another 3 percent as full electric vehicles. How do you describe that growth pattern?

For North America in 2020, we believe 25 percent of the vehicles will be [conventional] hybrids. Out of the 25 percent, we believe two-thirds will be mild hybrids, carrying an additional cost of $1,000 to $1,200 versus a typical comparable car. And one-third will be full hybrids. So, if you look at the full hybrid market, it will probably be around 1.5 million full hybrids [out of a projected North American market of 20 million].

Well short of, for example, Toyota’s goals.

We may be wrong. It may depend on how high the fuel prices will be. It will depend on whether or not there are tax incentives. And it will also depend on what the next CAFE standards are. There is an extreme pressure on carmakers to average out the cost of vehicles to meet higher standards. For example, they will have to subsidize electric cars by increasing the cost of their traditional cars, because somebody will have to pay for it.

That’s the theme of your report, that somebody has to pay for electric cars and hybrids. And that costs are not reflected in the purchase price, that there are very low profit margins or that automakers are selling the cars at a loss.

The evaluation we made with automakers and suppliers is, that if you look at the current costs, and look at what it can be—unless there’s a major technological breakthrough—those technologies will remain a lot higher in cost. And they you’ll need relatively higher fuel prices for it to be attractive to consumers. A lot depends on that.

And yet there is a mad rush toward electric-drive vehicles, including hybrids.

If you look at the report, hybrid vehicles versus advanced diesel vehicles become more [cost] efficient at $160 per barrel. We were close to that last summer. This triggered a crisis. But right now, we are $45 or $50. You look at a full electric vehicle, if you just look at the cost of ownership, it’s $280 per barrel [to make them reasonable].

I see a lot of figures going back and forth on battery prices, but we tend to come back to the hypothesis in the report, there’s no new news. People speak about leasing batteries. Leasing is fine, but with leasing, you still need to pay for the batteries.

You have the cost of batteries pegged at $2,000 per kilowatt-hour.

That’s today.

You’ve probably seen GM’s assertions that the battery costs for the Chevrolet Volt are $500 to $700.

I don’t think this is the current cost of those batteries. This may be one of the projections. I think it’s low.

It makes the Chevy Volt seems completely crazy if you’re right. [Note: At $2,000 per kilowatt-hour for batteries, the $40,000 Volt will come with a $32,000 battery.]

Yes and no. In terms of price, yes. It makes the Chevy Volt expensive. But through CAFE regulations, a carmaker will have interest to have more Volt-like cars on the street, if he wants to be able to sell SUVs and trucks. There’s no question that a GM or a Ford wants to meet the regulations, so they’ll have to have extremely efficient vehicles, to get CO2 credits to compensate for the light trucks they will sell.

Do you believe that Toyota is making money on Prius?

I don’t believe they are. I’m not saying they are losing money.

The fact that they are planning to introduce 10 more hybrids globally by 2012, does that strike you as odd if they are losing money?

If you want a cheap way to be fuel efficient, buy a car that’s half the size. Hybrids cannot compete with that. Most of the countries where gas prices are high, people drive smaller cars. The other thing is that diesel has been a fuel-efficient solution. That’s what many governments have been using as a solution. In Europe, for instance, there’s going be fewer hybrids, because diesel has already met the fuel-saving standards of the hybrids.

Do you see US consumers easily adopting smaller cars, especially considering that EVs, as your report says, will be primarily city [subcompact] cars?

Starting with the oil spike in 1973, every time there is a surge in oil prices, there is a surge in small cars. Last year was another one. People are very quick to adjust. If one way or the other, the gas prices are higher, it’s pretty sure that people would turn to smaller vehicles. The problem is—we’re seeing it right now with trucks and SUVs—as soon as gas prices go back to normal standards, sales shift again to larger vehicles. I believe through gas prices or different mechanisms, we’ll have to force the consumer into better buying patterns. I’m pretty sure we’ll see smaller cars in the US, notably in city environments, because this is where from a functional standpoint, having a smaller car has quite a few advantages. So, it’s not painful for the customer.

We’ll also probably see different business models in larger cities like New York and Chicago. Some cities may subsidize the use of electric vehicles—not necessary in ownership but something that can be shared or rented. You need a grid and a system for it to happen. I don’t think it works for a private investor, so I’m not sure there’s an actual profitable business model for a private investor, but for a city which is concerned about displacing environmental problems, and want the city to be a healthy place, I think this is a great solution.

In the report, you say that utilities don’t have much to gain from electric cars.

First of all, it’s a small [amount of energy that would be used by electric cars.] Unless people only charge at home at night, for those who have a garage, the infrastructure costs are high, as high as $20 billion to $25 billion. Somebody will have to pay for that, if the utilities will have to do it, it’s not a good return. The other thing, people who think about different business models, believe that to make it attractive, you probably need to subsidize the cost of electricity. So if you are a utility, what’s your incentive?

Given all of these factors, what’s your view of the amount of public money that’s being put to battery development and adoption of electric drive vehicles since Obama took office?

It depends on how serious we are about the planet. This is not about an economical choice. It will be in 50 years, when we run out of oil. This is going to start to be serious. But in a way, we could start in 20 or 30 years. Why do we want to start earlier? It’s not about money. This is where there hasn’t been enough discussion. It’s about spending money to be more environmentally friendly, because we think we have to do something about greenhouse gas emissions and make our cities healthy. It’s not about saving. It’s about spending more.

[These advance auto technologies] are not cheap, but many of things we do for safety and health are not cheap. You could compare it to a health care system. A health care system is not cheap, but do we want to go without it?

How do you reconcile the crisis facing the auto industry, and the full-speed-ahead approach for the most expensive technologies?

We need a clear path forward. That’s not only true for the carmakers in Detroit. We are putting demands on the automakers for spending that will not necessarily have good results. That’s not specific to GM or Chrysler. All of the OEMs have the same problem. They’re struggling today with having to fund technology developments which nobody knows when and how big the market will be. My recommendations to the carmakers and the suppliers that work with them is spread the risk. Try not to develop one technology for each of you. Work together, and at least they reduce the cost. They may reduce the upside for each of them, but they will reduce the downside if those technologies have slow adoption rates.

I would suggest to the government, and with a lot of humility, is to give loans. And we can also give grants.

Grants that require teaming?

Grants that require teaming so that it’s effective for the country. And if those technologies for any reason have slow adoption rates, it’s not too heavy on the profit and loss of the car manufacturers.

What’s been the reaction to Boston Consulting Group’s report on electric cars?

Two-fold. We’ve had a few people debating our hypothesis about the long-term costs of batteries, and coming up with more aggressive evaluations. That’s why we’re checking around the world. So far, we haven’t found strong evidence that the costs are different [than our current evaluation]. The other thing is a lot of extremely positive reactions, saying it was about time that someone shows the reality. Because otherwise we’re not making the right decisions.

More Hybrid News...

  • Anonymous

    Yet another screwball analysis from those invested in the status quo.
    BEV’s are not cost effective or attractive because battery costs are too high. That is the Model S from Tesla costs about $57,000.

    But at $750 per installed kWh, the Volt battery will only cost $12,000. Put that in a $24,000 vehicle like the Chevy Cruze and voilia, the Volt hits the market at $36,000 in 2012. Five years later, when the battery cost drops to $350 per installed kWh, the Volt price drops to less than $30,000.

    Meanwhile the Plug-in Prius sporting half the range of the Volt hits the market in 2012 for $27,000. Both of these cars provide long range and all electric trips to school, park and market. And just like the SUV fad, everybody will be driving them. Wait and see!

  • marty

    Another expert guessing about the publics future attitude to being totally screwed by oil companies .

    I predict there will be significantly more people ready to change and get rid of a petrol powered car than you hint at in the report.

    Skip the “hybrid ” altogether.

    I am ready to order an all electric car today, will solar power it from home, and the battery technology will evolve faster than improvements in petrol engines over the next few years.

    there is a groundswell of pople I have spoken to who feel the same, so we will see, and if this turns out to be more correct han the “report” , then scale of economies will dictate cheaper electric vehicles.

    I am one who will not buy another new petrol vehicle. Ever.

    Will buy a iMiev or tesla

  • JiMao

    People don’t buy cars for logical reasons. If they did we would never see another Porsche. ” It doesn’t significantly increase my productivity by shortening my commute time.” Right. People bought SUV’s in droves. So they could pull a boat that they they’re gonna buy someday. They cost a lot to buy and more to run. SUV’s are tall station wagons. You can’t sell a station wagon in the US.
    Look at the PC and the internet. What was the engine? Porn not productivity. And government investment in the internet. If we can find a way to make these cars sexy they will sell and the price will come down.

  • grasspress

    i’m hoping efficient diesel powered small cars will bridge the gap to the end of petrol for daily commutes and family transportation. why we don’t have the vw polo tdi and other remarkable small diesel powered cars widely available in europe is beyond me. i know some of the specs and restrictions are different, but they couldn’ t possibly be that different. and the idea that americans ‘won’t buy small cars’ just hasn’t been fully tested since there are no upscale and ‘green’ small cars available here.

    on the otherhand: why isn’t the porsche considered a ‘small car’?

  • kerry bradshaw

    I’ve been following allof the electric cars/battery developments during the past year and a half. The costs of batteries for the Volt is RIGHT NOW hundreds less than $1000 per kilowatthour. Even the most expensive lithium titanate Altair batteries don’t go for $2,000. None of the battery companies will tell anyone what their batteries cost, but since GM has repeatedly said that the Volt WILL NOT be subsidized (even at the beginning, at least not by the company), it’s obvious to anyone with half a brain that the batteries aren’t costing even $1000 per kilowatthour. Bankrupt companies don’t recover by introducing money losing products. Duh!
    A123 Systems, which also competed with LG for the battery contract, swears that their production costs will be less than $500 within a few years. And we know that BYD, which is building a $20,000 Volt lookalike has a larger battery pack
    and 50% greater electric driving range than the Volt. Their battery costs are reportedly less than $600 right now. In sum, how about sourcing your info from KNOWLEDGEABLE folks?

    EDITOR’S NOTE: interviewed Bob Lutz, GM’s product chief, on the day the Volt was unveiled at the 2007 Detroit Auto Show. Lutz said that the Volt would indeed be subsidized by the company in the first few years after its release. When asked how long, Lutz said for “about as long as Toyota subsidized the Prius.” The Prius was on the market for approximately 10 years before Toyota claimed that it was making a profit.

  • Anonymous

    The point here is that this is the view of the Obama auto task force (or at least its advisors), which has some ability to look into accounts and dig deeper than most into the market. This is what they think.

  • uktiger

    The paradigm needs to change. Electrification of the car can lead to a much cheaper vehicle. No braking system, no transmission, no diff, etc.

    A cheap lead acid battery pack with 3KwH of energy storage along with a $500 cogeneration Reinhardt Turbine will enable western manufacturers to offer a car that gets 150 miles to the gallon for less than $10k. The car can then be part of a distributed smart grid since the turbine achieves efficiency in excess of 60%.

  • Samie

    Xavier Mosquet comments in the article are just speculative no great inside info in his ideas. Not sure he should try to paint a broad picture with his forecasting. Skepticism is not all bad but to actually make comments that may not be not be realistic in its own right is someone what silly and is concerning when you think of it, being from a great advisory position to our President. Here’s some of his comments:

    “If you want a cheap way to be fuel efficient, buy a car that’s half the size.” -I really don’t think at the start of the first mass production of EV’s a person who buys a Nissan Versa is the same that buys a Volt or Cadillac counterpart.

    “So, if you look at the full hybrid market, it will probably be around 1.5 million full hybrids [out of a projected North American market of 20 million].” -How many Prius sales a year are there? What happens with the Insight, Fusion or any other development in price or market shift???

    “You look at a full electric vehicle, if you just look at the cost of ownership, it’s $280 per barrel [to make them reasonable].” -Why is it so many look at the price of oil as a prelude to the first to buy EV’s or plugin Volt type cars? Would $280 per barrel stop someone from buying a BMW with a full V8, no… may slow down sales but not everyone is going to freak out about gas especially well-to-do folks

    Do you believe that Toyota is making money on Prius?……….
    “I don’t believe they are. I’m not saying they are losing money”. – I don’t know why he needs to make a comment about that if it is something he knows nothing about….

    “The other thing, people who think about different business models, believe that to make it attractive, you probably need to subsidize the cost of electricity. So if you are a utility, what’s your incentive?” Yet another one point in time thought, how can one actually come up with that conclusion if markets are evolving and changing??? What about scaling up production to reduce cost or create greater incentives for improvements?

    “It will be in 50 years, when we run out of oil. This is going to start to be serious. But in a way, we could start in 20 or 30 years. Why do we want to start earlier? It’s not about money.” How silly yes it is about the money, what if carbon tax or cap & trade reg. plays a factor, does improving a persons environment/ prolonging health or even life have any cost amount in his ideas? He also wants companies to share information? What happened when the Big 3 shared the mild mode hybrid with the same battery supplier? Thankfully Ford has been splitting away from the control idea and Toyota never bought into GM’s lets share all the same ideas approach to hybrids. That approach is really only to control the rate of change in technology not to make great advances on it. Example oil companies want us to conserve they really are saying they want greater control on the longevity/pricing of their products while wanting to invest in battery and other technologies to better control direction in the energy markets.

  • Lynwood G Byrdic

    Most people with a mechanical aptitude have understood for years that a constant rpm engine propelling generators would get better mileage tan a large V8.( Railroads have been using this for years)
    Why is it necessary to manufacture a car that will run 120 MPH.
    Electric motors will run constantly for years without a breakdown.
    The life of a constant RPM engine is considerably longer than the type of engines that we have now. With most trips and daily use being less than 50 miles Just think how little gas this car will use, I do realize that the gas tax that we pay now would have to be replaced somehow.
    A seperate metoring device for plug in electricity that would include a road tax would be one of the ways that the gas tax could be replaced.
    The cars could have installed GPS units to track mileage with monthly bills paid the same as your or with your light bills. All parking lots would have metoring devices and electric plug ins for extended mileage. Generator Engines with timers could be left running for short times to recharge batteries. There are so many possibilites for the electric cars.
    We also have learned that front wheel drive cars take less energy to propel than a rear wheel drive car.
    What took our engineers so long to figure this out.

  • Ross Nicholson

    I just bought a 24V 30 amp hour LiFePO4 battery pack (0.72 killowatt) from YXM Zone on ebay for $355.00 delivered in less than a week all the way from red China via express mail. The cost was $493.06 per kilowatt for less than a single solitary kilowatt. Surely GM could do better than that?

  • Jake

    The Boston Consulting Group’s report is right on with all the data I’ve seen. It’s fine to dream, but we need to separate what we want to be true from what is actually true.

  • Lost Prius to wife

    According to my one work associate, The Boston Consulting Group may be off in the data that they are receiving on battery cost. My work associate, a lithium battery engineer, presently does electric car conversions, not hybrid conversions, in older cars. He was shown on local TV with an older Mustang (late 70’s vintage?) converted to total electric plug-in that could achieve approximately 300 miles per charge (large battery pack in trunk, hyper mile technique, regenerative braking, speeds kept under 45 mph). Where lithium batteries from his supplier were approximately 300% to 400% more cost than metal halides he was using last year, they are now approaching only 50% to 100% more than metal halides. His opinion was to stop using metal halides in his conversions (if the customer could be convinced of the advantages) and that the lithium battery cost should only be approximately 50% more than metal halides come around year’s end. He feels that the advantages / disadvantages of lithium batteries versus metal halides will be at least even if not slightly in lithium’s favor at 50% cost difference. It is possible that battery manufactures have hedged their bets to the conservative side as to what volume or demand there will be for lithium batteries. If this has happened, and The Boston Consulting Group’s predictions are based off that, then there may be more profit, marginal or otherwise, in both hybrids and electric cars. Any subsidizing for a new car design should be considerably less than the 10 years for Toyota’s Prius.

  • AP

    Jake, are you suggesting that wishing really, really hard and sincerely won’t make it happen?

  • Gene S

    How about start building toyota rav 4 ev again, that was produced 10 years ago, car weight about 3.000 lb and traveled 120 miles on a single charge, using inferior nickel metal hidrite batteries, that have 1/3 capacity of lithium ion.
    Did someone said: chevy volt at 40 miles range, per charge or Toyota Prius plug in, using state of the art lithium ion batteries. State of the art my ass, does anybody else see logic in this. just more smoke screens by big auto makers and oil companies trying to discredit electric car conceipt

  • Lost Prius to wife

    Jake, since Ross Nicholson can buy what amounts to 1 Kw for ~$500, and one .72 Kw battery is hardly volume buying, I think that The Boston Consulting Group’s assumption of $2000 per Kw may be off. This is basically the same thing being indicated by my engineer coworker. If one looks at The Boston Consulting Group’s chart, at $500 per Kw and oil $105 to $130 per barrel, the electric car crosses over, cost wise, even with what The Boston Consulting Group projects as 2020 gas, diesel, and electric hybrid advancements. With mass production, the $500 per Kw price should fall – which will only make all electric cars (and serial and power split hybrids) more efficient, less polluting, and more profitable. The way that The Boston Consulting Group calculated their values may have been accurate, but they may have been very conservative with the data that they inputted into the formula.

  • r-t

    I recently read that a breakthroug in charging times for laptop batteries ( tesla) have gone from
    6 minutes to 20 seconds per unit of electricity. I would express it correctly but I do not know electric.

    While this may not change battery costs it is evidence of major breakthrough potential.

  • mpg50


    There’s not much that one of us can do about the price of gas at the pump, but as a team of American Patriots working together (en masse), we can accomplish much.


    Thirty-seven years ago during the 1973 Oil Crisis we developed a liquid fuel conditioner. We call it MPG50. When added to gasoline or diesel fuel, it provides many benefits including a gas mileage boost of 25% to 50% and cutting exhaust pollution up to 90%. It is extremely cost-effective and widespread use of MPG50 can cut American dependence on foreign oil by 35%.

    It’s a No-Brainer: Buy a $25 trial bottle of MPG50 and you get a $40 Gasoline Rebate Voucher good at any gas station in North America. So, you make a $15 profit for trying MPG50. And, with $2/gallon gas prices a bottle of MPG50 will save you 50 cents/gallon, and since one bottle treats 160 gallons, you get $80 more in gas or diesel fuel savings.

    The MPG50 Affiliate Plan also gives Americans a multi-billion dollar economic stimulus plan which could immediately put millions of Americans to work with no increase to the Federal deficit. As an Affiliate, you can make a good living wage & there is no cost for the business (Simply agree to buy one bottle of MPG50/month to qualify for commissions). See

    You can not only save, but also earn, big $$$ marketing MPG50 as the price of gasoline & diesel fuel climbs higher & higher.

    Affiliate signup:

    God Bless America

  • AP

    mpg50: I assume your invention’s energy comes from snake oil, right?

  • Marcus Sabathil

    Left out of the report are a few important details which skew the results heavily in favour of ICE vehicles.

    1)The true costs of oil are not represented which make the report highly skewed. Oil is highly subsidized so the title is very misleading. They base their report on the pump costs alone. Add in a few wars for oil and the picture would be very different.

    2) The costs of ownership do not include service costs which are quite high for ICE vehicles and would be substantially lower for an electric car. Also resale values for an electric car would be higher due to the longevity of electric motors.

    3) Cheaper batteries are coming and this report only covers Lithium Ion and at an inflated price. large scale NiMH batteries, as in the EV1 gen2 and RAV4, would be much cheaper if only Cobasis (majority owned by Chevron) would licence the technology. Why not make the cost of batteries a variable in the graphs like the costs of different ICE technologies?

    A shoddy report at best, anti-electric propaganda at worst.

  • Indigo

    Of course, in Baltimore, the EV problem might be complicated by the fact that the previous Republican governor Bob Ehrlich (who then got voted out of office) thought it would be a swell idea to let BGE operate as an unregulated monopoly for electricity production. Here’s a shock: my power bill went from $150/month to $600/month because the power company raised rates high enough to give the executive staff $32 million in bonuses.

    So, I wonder if gasoline might actually be cheaper than electricity in a Post-Erhlich Maryland.

  • Jennifer M

    I don’t even know where to begin! Maybe GM wouldn’t need a bailout if they didn’t spend millions to produce a car that they were then going to turn around and sabotage. I mean how does it make sense to spend money to be ahead of the other car makers, produce an electric car, then repo and destroy all of them and start all over again 10 years later to then be behind everyone again???!!!

  • Jennifer M

    I agree with what you have said completely. How convenient and coincidental that an oil company bought the rights to the battery that will essentially minimize oil use!

    Main article: Patent encumbrance of large automotive NiMH batteries
    “In 1994, General Motors acquired a controlling interest in Ovonics’s battery development and manufacturing, including patents controlling the manufacturing of large nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries. On October 10, 2001, Texaco purchased GM’s share in GM Ovonics, and Chevron completed its acquisition of Texaco six days later. In 2003, Texaco Ovonics Battery Systems was restructured into Cobasys, a 50/50 joint venture between Chevron and Energy Conversion Devices (ECD) Ovonics.[5]
    In her book, Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars that Will Recharge America, published in February 2007, Sherry Boschert argues that large-format NiMH batteries are commercially viable but that Cobasys refuses to sell or license them to small companies or individuals. Boschert reveals that Cobasys accepts only very large orders for these batteries. When Boschert conducted her research, major auto makers showed little interest in NiMH batteries. Since no other companies were capable of producing large orders, Cobasys was not manufacturing any NiMH batteries for automotive purposes.[6]
    However, in December 2006, Cobasys and General Motors announced that they had signed a contract under which Cobasys provides NiMH batteries for the Saturn Aura hybrid sedan.[7] In March 2007, GM announced that it would use Cobasys NiMH batteries in the 2008 Chevrolet Malibu hybrid as well. Cobasys remains unwilling to produce and sell NiMH batteries in smaller quantities to individuals interested in building or retrofitting their own PHEVs.”

    As excepted from:

    5.^ Roberson, J. (March 14, 2007) “Supplier Cobasys exploring more hybrid batteries” Detroit Free Press
    6.^ Boschert, S. (2007) Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars that Will Recharge America (Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers) ISBN 9780865715714
    7.^ Abuelsamid, S. (December 6, 2006) “Cobasys providing NiMH batteries for Saturn Aura hybrid”

  • Ross Nicholson

    I paid $475/Kilowatt-hour for my little .76 KWH LiFePO4 rechargeable battery, and that was a fed-ex delivered price from red China.

    The price of oil is incorrect because the dollar is under deflation. Actually home prices, oil prices, etc. have remained pretty constant. (Look up the definition of the word ‘deflation’.) Red China’s tyrants decided to sequester US money at a 38% greater rate than ever before last July. The fed failed to increase the money supply.

    Of course the cheapest way to make cars fuel efficient is to mandate lower coefficients of drag. 60% of the energy of a vehicle is just to move the air out of the way. If the government insisted on lower coefficients of drag for all vehicles, that would enclose the wheel wells, add boat tails and belly pans and end America’s dependence on middle-eastern oil, almost instantly. Of course, the cars would be ‘ugly’.


    Thanks for bringing this to our attention and providing a very informative interview. We’ve written an extended analysis and commentary on the report, titled “Automotive Task Force Consultants Are Plug-In Skeptics”,” available at the CalCars-News Archive,

    — Felix Kramer, Founder, The California Cars Initiative


    The relationship between the development of battery technology and the demand adoption curve for electric vehicles is more potent than the idea posed by the BCG that it is mainly “value proposition” that will drive adoption. The report is naïve on how in time the dual effect of technology and production volumes dramatically bring down costs. Also, the report clearly underestimates the sea-change in consumer demand across the world (especially outside of the USA) for more environmentally friendly and efficient cars. “Value proposition” is a concept which does not fit with the model of the times!

    The plug-in will come first and succeed because the (battery) technology will be available earlier and because it makes sense to opinion leaders and early adopters.
    You can find the TRU group Inc forecast for electric vehicles in the slide presentation given at the recent lithium supply-demand conference in Santiago, Chile. The link is

    TRU Group Inc

  • Consultoria RH

    Este blog é uma representação exata de competências. Eu gosto da sua recomendação. Um grande conceito que reflete os pensamentos do escritor. Consultoria RH