Vehicles: energy transition conclusions?

Vehicles energy transition research

Vehicles transport people and freight around the world, explaining 70% of global oil demand, 30% of global energy use, 20% of global CO2e emissions. This overview summarizes all of our research into vehicles, and key conclusions for the energy transition.

Electrification is a revolution for small vehicles, a mega-trend of the 21st century. We also believe that large and long-range transportation will remain predominantly combustion-fueled due to unrivalled energy density and practicality. It is most cost-effectively decarbonized via promoting efficiency gains, lower-carbon fuels and CO2 removals.


(1) Electrification is a game changer for light-vehicles, with 3-5x greater fuel economy than combustion vehicles (database here), due to inexorable thermodynamic differences between electric motors and heat engines (overview note here).

(2) Electric vehicle technology continues to improve, in an early innings, with multi-decade running room, which makes it an interesting area for decision makers to explore. We have profiled axial flux motors, which promise 2-3x higher power densities, even versus Tesla’s world-leading PMSRMs while surpassing 96% efficiencies (note here). And SiC power electronics that unlock faster and more efficient switching in the power MOSFETs underlying EV traction inverters.

(3) New and world-changing vehicle types will also be unlocked by electric motors’ greater compactness, simplicity and controllability. e-mobility provides an example with the lowest energy costs per passenger on our chart above. Albeit futuristic, we have also written on opportunities in aerial vehicles, drones and droids, robotics, airships, military technologies, inspection technologies.

(4) EV Charging. Each 1,000 EVs will ultimately require 40 Level 2 (30-40kW) and 3.5 Level 3 (100+ kW) chargers (NREL estimates). But we wonder if EV charging infrastructures will ultimately get overbuilt (for reasons in our note here). Is there a moat in the patents of EV charging specialists, such as Chargepoint? Or Nio? As a result, we are particularly excited by the shovel-makers, the suppliers of materials and electronic components, that will feed into chargers, especially fast chargers. Granular costs of EV chargers are modelled here, and can be compared with the 17c/gallon net margins of conventional fuel retail stations here. An amazing statistic is that a conventional fuel pump dispenses 100x more fuel per minute than a 150kW fast-charger, and we wonder if fast-chargers will stoke demand for CHPs (note here).

(5) Large vehicles that cover large distances face different constraints. For example, once the battery in a heavy truck surpasses 8 tons, yielding c50% of the range of a diesel truck, then additional battery weight starts eating into cargo capacity (data here). And the range of a purely battery powered plane is currently around 90km (data here).

(5a) For trucks, an excellent data-file comparing diesel, LNG, CNG, LPG and H2 fuelling is here. There may be some niche deployments of electric trucks and hydrogen trucks. But we think the majority of long distance, inter-continental trucking will remain powered by liquid fuels, i.e., oil products. Although they may improve efficiency by hybridizing (energy saving data here), including using super-capacitors (note here).

(6) Economies of scale. Larger vessels, which carry more passengers and more freight are inherently more energy efficient. This is visible in the title chart. And we have modelled the economics of container ships, bulk carriers, LNG shipping, commercial aviation, mine trucks, electric railways, pipelines and other offshore vessels.

(7) Light-weighting also improves fuel economy, as energy consumption is a linear function of mass, and replacing 10% of a vehicle’s steel with carbon fiber can improve fuel economy by 16% (vehicle masses are built up here). Polymers research here. This can be compared with typical vehicle manufacturing costs.

(8) Automating vehicles can also make them 15-35% more efficient (note here), although we also wonder whether the improved convenience would also result in more demand for long-distance road travel…

(9) Changing demand patterns? Autos are c95% of <500-mile trips today, planes are c90% of >1,000-mile trips; while long distance travel is c50% leisure and visiting friends (data here). Travel demand correlates with income across all categories (data here). Travel speeds have also improved by over 100x since pre-industrial times (excellent data here, breaking down travel by purpose, vehicle and demographics). We estimate the distribution chain for the typical US consumer costs 1.5bbls of fuel, 600kg of CO2 and $1,000 per annum, across container ships, railways, trucks, delivery vans and cars (data here). But displacing travel demand delivers the deepest reductions of all, in the energy intensity of transportation. Thus we would also consider remote work (note here), digitization (category here), traffic optimization and recycling (here) together with vehicle efficiency technologies. They are all related. But as always, there are good debates to be had about future energy demand and fears over Jevons Paradox.

(10) Hydrogen vehicles. Despite looking for opportunities in hydrogen vehicles and e-fuels, we think there may be more exciting decarbonization opportunities elsewhere: due to higher costs, high energy penalties and challenging practicalities. This follows notes into hydrogen trucks; and data-files into Goldilocks-like fuel cells and hydrogen fuelling stations. A summary of all of our hydrogen research is linked here.

The data-file linked below summarizes all of our research to-date into vehicles, which follows below in chronological order. Note that we have generally shown energy use on a wagon-to-wheel basis and assume 2.0 passengers per passenger vehicle. You can stress test all of the different inputs ($/gal fuel, c/kWh electricity, $/kg hydrogen) in the data-file. Other excellent comparison files are here (EVs vs ICEs, ICEs vs H2 vehicles, diesel vs LNG vs H2 trucks). We have also published similar overviews for our research into batteries, electrification, battery metals and other important materials in the energy transition.

Mapping vehicle value chains?

Markets exposed to EV and ICE production

Who is impacted if vehicle sales, EVs or ICE volumes surprise? Autos are a $2.7 trn pa global market, a vast 2.5% of global GDP. 15% is gross margin for OEMs. The other 85% is spread across metals, materials and capital goods. Hence this 14-page note highlights 200 companies from our database of 1,500 companies. Some are geared to ICEs. Some to EVs. And some to both.

Global vehicle sales by manufacturer?

Global vehicle sales by manufacturer are broken down in this screen. 20 companies produce 85% of the world’s vehicles, led by Toyota, VW, Stellantis, GM and Ford. The data-file contains key numbers and notes on each company, including each company’s sales of BEVs, PHEVs, general EV strategy, and how it has been evolving in 2024.


Global vehicle sales by manufacturer are tabulated in this data-file. The entire global OEM industry produces 90M vehicles per year (see our vehicle sales database), at an average revenue of $30k per vehicle, for $2.5trn of total revenues (i.e., 2.5% of global GDP), across $2trn of market cap (2% of global total), while directly employing around 5M people.

Vehicle sales by the 20 largest manufacturers in the world from 2011 to 2023.

OEMs’ revenues average $30k per global vehicle sold and their gross profit averages $5k per vehicle sold. For luxury vehicles (e.g., BMW, Mercedes, Volvo, Land Rover), revenue per vehicle is closer to $55k and gross profit per vehicle can exceed $10k per vehicle. Details are in the file for each OEM (chart below).

Profits vs revenues per vehicle for different vehicle manufacturers by geography in 2023

Electric vehicle sales by manufacturer are also disaggregated for 9M BEVs and 4M PHEVs sold in 2023. BYD and Tesla together sold 40% of the world’s EVs, while the top 10 list accounts for 75% of EVs and also includes VW, Stellantis (due to the Fiat 500e and Peugeot e-208) and GM (due to the Chevy Bolt range).

2024 has seen weaker momentum for electric vehicles. GM pulled back on a target to produce 1M EVs per year by 2025 saying instead it would be “guided by the consumer”. Ford pivoted a new manufacturing plant in Canada away from EVs and back towards gasoline-powered pick-ups after its EV division made a loss of $100k per vehicle. In May-2024, Nissan delayed an expansion of EVs in North America. Mecedes-Benz said it needed a flexible approach to reflect “peaks and troughs” in EV momentum. In May-2024, even Tesla dropped a goal of producing 20M vehicles per year by 2030. In September-2024, Volvo abandoned a target to sell only electric cars by 2030.

Our take is that electric motors are superior to ICE engines in power, performance and vehicle emissions; but EV batteries are still inferior to hydrocarbons in energy density and vehicle cost implications.

Therefore context matters. And different OEMs need clear strategies that ramify into specific niches (e.g., clean urban mobility โ‰  pick-up trucks for Middle America โ‰  premium vehicles โ‰  low-cost all-purpose cars).

As an example, BMW is focused on luxury vehicles (not low-cost, mass-market EVs!!), and is thus adding bi-directional charging to its vehicles, and continuing with electrification ambitions; while many of Japan’s OEMs, such as Toyota, Honda, Suzuki, Mazda, Subaru partly due to challenged Japanese electricity markets, have limited their electrification strategies to hybrids, and are selling almost no BEVs.

However, uncertainties over the pace of EV adoption, the extent of policy support, and the ultimately winning EV technologies create a long-term challenge for the OEMs. At worst, there are risks of betting on the wrong horse, prioritizing dimensions that consumers will ultimately not accept, and getting distracted from what consumers actually will want; precisely at the time when China is gearing up in low-cost vehicle production helped by low-cost LFP batteries.

Going platinum: PGMs in energy transition?

Demand for PGMs in the energy transition from 1990 to 2050. Demand will depend on EV adoption rates.

Could PGMs experience another up-cycle through 2030, on more muted EV sales growth in 2025-30, and rising catalyst loadings per ICE vehicle? This 16-page note explores global supply chains for platinum and palladium, the long-term demand drivers for PGMs in energy transition, and profiles leading PGM producers.

Vehicle emissions of CO, NOx and HCs?

There has been a remarkable reduction in the negative air quality impacts of combustion vehicles since 1970, as quantified in this data-file and over time. Vehicle emissions of CO, NOx and HCs have all fallen by 20-60x over the past 50-years, to 5 grams/mile, 0.2 grams/mile and 0.3 grams per mile, respectively.


This data-file quantifies vehicle emissions of CO, NOx and HCs across the active US fleet, using data reported by the BTS. The reported BTS data series go back to 1990, however, we have been able to take the data-series back to 1970, by interpolating between other data-sets, such as the total miles driven across the US since 1970.

Vehicle emissions of CO. The average modern ICE vehicle emits 4 grams of carbon monoxide (CO) per mile, while comparable vehicles 50-years ago emitted 20x more CO.

Vehicle emissions of NOx. The average modern ICE vehicle emits 0.2 grams of NOx per mile, while comparable gasoline vehicles 50-years ago emitted 30x more NOx, and comparable diesel vehicles emitted 40x more.

Gasoline vehicle emissions of HCs. The average modern gasoline vehicle emits 0.3 grams of uncombusted hydrocarbons per mile, while a comparable vehicle 50-years ago emitted 35x more.

Diesel vehicle emissions of HCs. The average modern diesel vehicle emits 0.2 grams of uncombusted hydrocarbons per mile, while a comparable vehicle 50-years ago emitted 60x more.

The main reason for these reductions in air emissions has been improving engine technology and the use of PGMs within catalytic converters, as mandated by emissions standards.

Continued improvements will come from electric vehicles which do not have any tailpipe emissions at all. Please see our broader vehicles research.

Electric vehicles: the road to cost parity?

Price breakdown of different types of new vehicles in the US in 2024.

Could electric vehicles deflate towards cost parity with ICEs in 2025-30, helping to re-accelerate EV adoption? This 13-page report contains a granular sum-of-the-parts cost breakdown for EVs vs ICEs. Then we consider battery deflation, power train deflation, small urban EVs, tax incentives, and the representativeness of low-cost Chinese EVs.

Vehicle depreciation rates: EVs versus ICEs?

This data-file quantifies vehicle depreciation rates for EVs versus ICEs, by compiling the pricing for over 2,500 vehicles, from various used car websites. Vehicle depreciation rates average $0.11/mile (0.5% per 1,000 miles) for ICE vehicles and $0.27/mile (0.75% per 1,000 miles) for EVs, suggesting that EVs do depreciate faster.


The average costs for ICEs and EVs in the US in 2024 are $30k and $45k respectively, both on a top-down basis when we sample the prices of different vehicles, and on a bottom-up basis when we quantify the underlying costs of vehicles by component. This informs our outlook for vehicle sales over time.

But how quickly do different vehicles lose value? To answer this question, we have compiled data from over 2,500 vehicles, from various used car websites, based on their make, model, delivery year, age and mileage. Interestingly, depreciation rates are similar to or higher than fueling costs!

Vehicle costs per mile for ICE cars, ICE SUVs, small battery hybrids, and EVs.

Vehicle depreciation rates average $0.12/mile for ICE vehicles, which is a depreciation rate of 0.5% per 1,000 miles, and means that a car has lost c40% of its value after 100,000 miles. These kinds of numbers are exemplified by the data shown below, capturing the depreciation of a Honda Accord (Rob’s childhood car!)

Depreciation rate for the Honda Accord

Vehicle depreciation rates average $0.27/mile for electric vehicles, which is a depreciation rate of 0.75% per 1,000 miles, meaning an EV has lost 50% of its initial value after 100,000 miles. This is an average across eight well-known EVs, nicely exemplified for the Kia EV6 below.

Depreciation rate for the Kia EV6.

However, there is also variability among the depreciation rates of vehicles, especially electric vehicles. Generally, the more expensive and more premium vehicles depreciate faster, even in percentage terms (44% correlation). Although the cult following of the Tesla results in lower depreciation rates for the Model 3 and Model Y, which are only slightly higher than for ICEs.

Full data are available in the data file for the BMW i4, Chevrolet Bolt, Chevrolet Equinox, Honda Accord, Honda Civic, Hyundai IONIQ 5, Kia EV6, Nissan Rogue, Subaru Outback, Tesla Model 3, Tesla Model X, Tesla Model Y, Toyota Camry, Toyota Corolla, Toyota RAV4, Volkswagen ID.4.

Results are very similar to a prior analysis that we undertook in 2020, which show the exact same depreciation rate for cars (in $/mile) and a similar depreciation rate for electric vehicles (although the loss rate has increased by c10% in $/mile terms).

Costs per mile of SUVs, hybrids, EVs, and hydrogen cars

In this earlier study, we also evaluated trucks and hydrogen vehicles. The original analysis is also available via the second download radio button below, for those who wish to compare the changes over time.

Vehicle costs per mile for different types of vehicles.

Electric vehicle cost breakdown by component?

New vehicle purchase price buildups for typical ICEs and EVs in 2024.

This data-file disaggregates the $30k total cost of a typical new ICE and the c$45k total cost of a typical new EV, as a sum-of-the-parts, across 25 cost lines. Drive train costs are similar at $8-9k each. The key challenge for the EV is the battery. The electric vehicle cost breakdown shows promise for improving power electronics and smaller batteries.


When we tabulate the sales prices of vehicles in 2024, the average new ICE vehicle on the market is being sold for $30k and the average new EV is being sold for closer to $45k. So, can we disaggregate the costs of both vehicle types into their component parts?

To answer this question, we have attempted a full breakdown of electric vehicle costs and a full breakdown of ICE costs, looking across 25 cost lines.

We estimate that the core drive train of an ICE costs c$9k, after tabulating the engine, transmission, fuel tank, fuel pump, engine control unit (ECU), air intake system, radiator, oil pump, catalytic converter, exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), muffler, alternator, starter battery and other auxiliaries (chart below, numbers in the data-file).

Cost buildup for an ICE drive train.

Conversely, we estimate that the core drive train of an EV costs c$16k, after tabulating the lithium ion battery, battery management system (BMS), power distribution system, electric motors, traction inverter, reduction gear, e-fan, battery cooling plates, coolant heater, high-voltage cables, onboard charger (OBC), DC-DC converter and capacitors (chart below, numbers in the data-file). 

Cost buildup for an EV power train.

On top of this, our vehicle cost breakdown also adds similar costs for the chassis, body, exterior, interior, auto manufacturing, and logistics. Other fees such as the manufacturer’s margin, distributors’ margin, and sales taxes tend to be charged as a percentage rate. Hence a more expensive underlying vehicle results in larger mark-ups.

Effectively, the drive trains of an ICE and an EV are relatively similar today, while the key difference is the cost of the battery. Numbers can be stress tested, and taken back to first principles, in the EVs and ICEs tabs.

Electric vehicles: saturation point?

Future vehicle purchases by type and by income level. Most EV and hybrid purchases will be by people with incomes over $100k per year.

Energy transition technologies are often envisaged to follow S-curves: rapidly inflecting, then reaching 100% market adoption. However, this 17-page report argues electric vehicles will more likely saturate at 15-30% of sales in 2025-30. EVs were already at 15% of sales in 2023. So what would the more limited EV upside mean for energy and materials?

Turbochargers: leading companies?

Revenues and exposures of top companies producing turbochargers.

Six leading companies in turbochargers control two-thirds of the $15-20bn pa global turbochargers market. 55% of ICE vehicles now have turbochargers, which can improve fuel economy by as much as 10%, by enabling smaller and better-utilized engines to achieve higher peak power ratings. What opportunities ahead, to adapt for vehicle electrification, or even if EV sales accelerate less than expected in 2025-30?


Turbochargers unlock higher power output from smaller, lighter, lower-friction and thus more efficient combustion engines, by compressing the air that enters the engine cylinders to 1.5-2 atmospheres, and thus increasing the overall quantity of oxygen burned alongside the fuel.

Turbochargers may be powered by expanding hot exhaust gases from the engine, thereby minimizing their energy costs. Or relatedly, superchargers may be electrically powered, by drawing from the low-voltage (e.g., 48V) power supply of a vehicle.

The key reason that turbochargers increase fuel economy is that most engines are inefficient under light loads, therefore it is more efficient to run a smaller engine at medium-high loads, than a larger engine at low loads. Some studies have quoted CO2 savings of up to 10% on turbocharged vehicles.

The global automotive turbocharger market has been estimated at $15-20bn, as 55% of light vehicles have turbochargers today. Individual units cost $100-10,000 depending on size. Including heavier commercial vehicles, ships, aircraft, agricultural and construction machinery, some studies estimate the total turbocharger market as $30-60bn pa.

Disadvantages of turbochargers are that higher pressures and temperatures in a vehicle engine increase the amount of wear, and raise complexity, including for circulating high-grade engine oil to remove the excess heat.

Leading companies in turbochargers? Six companies control about two-thirds of the global turbocharger market, based on our screen. Garrett Motion is most exposed, with turbochargers comprising over 80% of its business.

For those that enjoy special situations, Garrett is emerging from bankruptcy and the overhang of asbestos liabilities, Continental is spinning out its automotive division in 2024, Cummins was fined $1.7bn in 2023 for using defeat devices (and we have also reviewed Cummins recent patents), and IHI is working through a whistleblower accusation that it falsified data affecting 4,000 engines since 2003.

Electrification is cited as an opportunity? Across the peer group, many of the leading companies in turbochargers are expanding to supply pumps and compressors for heat pumps to provide coolant to EV batteries. BorgWarner notes that the content opportunity for light vehicles rises by almost 5x in a BEV. Likewise, Valeo which is most exposed to electrification of the suppliers in our screen is citing a “spectacular” growth opportunity from EVs, while also aiming to expand margins. This may not entirely augur for deflation in electric vehicles.

Leading companies in turbochargers and other engine technologies may also be impacted if electric vehicle sales accelerate more slowly in 2025-30, as discussed in our recent research into EV market saturation. Numbers and details on each company are in the data-file.

Copyright: Thunder Said Energy, 2019-2024.