technology of the baseline vehicles. Total investment in assembly line equipment, tooling,
development, and launch is estimated at $60 million for this type of facility based on recent DOE
studies^24 and is amortized over a four-year cycle. It should be noted, however, that total costs are
dominated by battery costs, so that EV cost is not greatly affected by modest errors in the $60
million estimate.
GM and BMW, among others, have displayed purpose designed EVs, which are vehicles
designed from the start to be electrically powered. It is unclear, however, how the design and
engineering costs for such vehicles can ever be amortized over their likely low production rates,
and GM officials have publicly stated that the $250 million invested in the Impact to date will
never be recouped.^25 The advantage of purpose designed EVs is that design decisions about items
such as lightweight materials would tend to be different depending on whether the end result was
a gasoline-powered vehicle or an electrically powered one; EV designers would favor energy
efficiency to a greater extent than gasoline vehicle designers. Building EVs from gliders based on
OTA’s advanced vehicle designs eliminates these differences, however, as these designs also are
geared toward maximum energy efficiency.
Table 4-7 shows the battery and total vehicle weight, energy efficiency, and incremental price
of several EVs in each market class in 2005. In each case, the level of body technology and tire
technology is identical to the level used in the advanced conventional vehicle scenarios, and prices
are calculated as an increment over the advanced conventional vehicle in the same scenario,
consistent with the “glider” approach to manufacturing EVs. Note that the vehicles’ price
increments over the business-as-usual vehicles (which may be the better comparison) would
be higher than the values given in the table.
In 2005, an EV powered by an advanced semi-bipolar lead-acid battery with an 80-mile range
appears to be a viable though expensive prospect for the subcompact and intermediate car, but
less viable for the compact van or a standard pickup truck. The EV version of the intermediate
car is about $11,000 more than the gasoline-powered car, which is consistent with the
results of some other studies.^26 In going from gasoline to electricity, weight increases from
less than 1,300 kg (2,860 lbs) to over 2,030 kg (4,400 lbs). An EV pickup truck could weigh
over 6,400 lbs, rendering it an unrealistic proposition. Very significant weight reductions would
occur, if the battery used were a Ni-MH design and range restricted to about 100 miles.
Incremental prices are almost twice that for the lead acid battery-powered EV if the Ni-MH
battery costs the expected $400 per kilowatt hour.^27 However, if Ovonic’s claims for the Ni-MH
battery^28 prove correct, the EVs powered by the Ni-MH battery at $200/kWh would be lower in
cost than those powered by the lead-acid battery (at $150/kWh) owing to the weight
compounding effects, and the incremental vehicle price would be about $8,800.
(^24) Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc.,‘Characteristics of Alternative Fuel Vehicles: Imputs to the AFVTM,” prepared for Martin Marietta,
- 25
"Shocker at GM:: People Like the Impact,” Business Week, Jan. 23, 1995, p. 47.
(^26) Sierra Research, "The Cost-Effectiveness of Further Regulating Mobile Source Emissions,” prepared for the American Automobile
Manufacturers Association, Febuary 1994. 27
Although this is nearly three times the lead acid battery's cost, there are some cost savings in the vehicle structure and motor because of the Ni-
MH battery’s lighter weight. 28
See the section on batteries in chapter 3.