Auto Batteries: Short Term Revenue Growth Favors Lead-Acid by 6 to 1 50 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Last week, an article in Green Car Congress summarized a market forecast that Dr. Menahem Anderman presented at this month's Advanced Automotive Battery Conference in Long Beach, California. In his presentation, Dr. Anderman evaluated the market for HEVs in 2011, projected a $1,230 million market for automotive NiMH batteries, and projected a $320 million market for automotive Li-ion batteries. The following graph comes from Green Car Congress, is based on data from Dr. Anderman's AABC presentation, and shows both unit sales and market value of the Li-ion batteries that will be used in HEVs by 2011 (click on the graph for a larger image).
It's sobering if not downright depressing when you get to the middle of the article and read about Dr. Anderman's analysis of the gasoline prices required for HEVs to make economic sense.
Based on a five-year net present value analysis, Dr. Anderman concluded that:
- Stop-start hybrids make economic sense in the $5 per gallon range;
- Mild and strong hybrids require a gasoline price of roughly $7 per gallon; and
- PHEVs and full EVs require a gasoline price of about $10 per gallon.
When he performed an eight-year present value analysis, Dr. Anderman concluded that:
- Stop-start hybrids make sense in the $3 per gallon range;
- Mild and strong hybrids make sense in the $5 per gallon range;
- PHEVs require a gasoline price of roughly $7 per gallon; and
- Full EVs still require a gasoline price of about $10 per gallon.
I know very few people that can perform a net present value analysis. I know even fewer who go looking for a new car with the idea that they're going to drive it for five to eight years. Given the dismal economics of mild and strong hybrids and the ghastly economics of cars with plugs, I believe the high-end market for the next several years will be limited to the image conscious affluent who are willing and able to pay big premiums to make a statement. While Dr. Anderman's forecast of 40,000 Li-ion powered HEVs in two years strikes me as a very ambitious target, I'm willing to set aside my reservations for purposes of this article and assume that manufacturers of automotive Li-ion batteries will be guaranteed revenues of $320 million in 2011.
While most would agree that $320 million of total revenue by 2011 sounds impressive, it loses a bit of luster when you consider that advanced lead-acid battery manufacturers can expect $900 million to $1.8 billion of incremental revenue by 2011 from the widespread implementation of stop-start technology as standard equipment.
I've used the following graph from an October 2008 Frost & Sullivan presentation in a couple of recent articles, but it bears repeating because the law of large numbers is the fundamental reason that short term revenue growth in the automotive battery market favors lead-acid by 6 to 1 over Li-ion. The long blue segments represent the stop-start market that will be dominated by advanced lead-acid batteries because they can do the required work, they cost 60% to 75% less than NiMH and Li-ion alternatives, and they are the only batteries that can be manufactured in sufficient numbers to serve the short-term needs of automakers. The red, green and violet segments represent the high priced "centerfold" alternatives favored by EV advocates, reporters, politicians and public relations managers who would rather sell a sweet dream than grapple with economic reality.
In How Short-Term Supply Constraints Will Impact Booming HEV Markets , I explained that Frost & Sullivan based their original forecast on European CO2 emission standards but did not account for President Obama's subsequent acceleration of domestic CAFE standards. That change alone will push growth that would normally have occurred between 2015 and 2020 into earlier years and could easily double the growth rates Frost & Sullivan expected last fall. So with that background in mind, let's run the numbers.
Currently automakers spend between $50 and $100 for the commodity lead-acid batteries they use for starting, lighting, ignition and accessories; call it an average of $60. Since stop-start hybrids put far more stress on the battery, the advanced lead-acid batteries needed for stop-start vehicles will probably cost the automakers $250 to $300 per vehicle; call it an average of $260. That means the battery cost increment for a stop-start vehicle will be in the $200 range.
A quick eyeball of the Frost & Sullivan graph shows forecasted sales of 4.5 million stop-start vehicles by 2011, which works out to about $900 million in incremental revenue for lead-acid battery manufacturers, or roughly three times Dr. Anderman's forecast for Li-ion. If accelerated CAFE standards double global demand for stop-start vehicles, the incremental revenue for lead-acid battery manufacturers will be closer to $1.8 billion, or roughly six times Dr. Anderman's forecast for Li-ion.
Li-ion battery developers Altair Nanotechnologies (ALTI), Ener1 (HEV) and Valence Technologies (VLNC) have a combined market capitalization of $935 million and will be vying with a host of established domestic, European and Asian competitors for a piece of $320 million in total revenue.
In comparison, lead-acid battery manufacturers Exide Technologies (XIDE), C&D Technologies (CHP) and Axion Power International (AXPW.OB) have a combined market capitalization of $340 million and will be vying with their traditional competitors for a share of $1.8 billion of incremental revenue.
Benjamin Graham said, "In the short term, the stock market behaves like a voting machine, but in the long term it acts like a weighing machine." The voting is based on hopes, dreams and expectations. The weighing is based on revenue growth, earnings and other business fundamentals. Any time I can identify one industry sub-sector that trades at one-third of the market value of its more glamorous cousin but is likely to enjoy three to six times the short-term revenue gains, I have to believe the undervalued sector will reward investors handsomely as the weighing machine returns to balance.
DISCLOSURE: Author is a former director and executive officer of Axion Power International (AXPW.OB) and holds a large long position in its stock. He also holds a small long position in Exide (XIDE
).
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication in the last week
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Those with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last week
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,
as ranked by their peers-
1
User 353732
-
2
Moon Kil Woong
-
3
doubleguns
-
4
optionsgirl
-
5
Mayascribe
Top Commenters » -
1
-
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most activeSee all
Instabloggers.
Top Instabloggers » -
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
The Frost and Sullivan forecast for auto sales is apparently based on 2007 figures, and hence acts as though the recession has no impact on sales.
Any motor business which bases it's projections on pre-recession figures is on it's way to bankruptcy.
In many markets, especially those most interested in hybrids, it may take very many years to reach pre-recession levels so demand for hybrids is likely to be comparatively constricted.
A more serious problem would seem to be in the conflation of advanced lead acid with common or garden lead acid, which has been extensively tested and is cheap.
To date, advanced lead-acid are neither, and would need extensive testing before they were used much in the auto industry.
They are also far from cheap, with low cost being a projection so far as I am aware, not something that you can get on a present price list.
In fact, they appear to be around the same price as NiMH, which has been thoroughly tested.
This is confirmed by the fact that as far as I can determine no major manufacturer is using lead-acid as assist for any advanced function, even in very light hybrids which just add stop start.
They are also building umpteen factories for the production of NiMH and lithium batteries, not lead-acid, however advanced.
The present slump also means that resource constraints which some say will happen in NiMH, and some also argue in lithium, are unlikely for some years.
A few penny stocks such as Axion are going for advanced lead acid, and good luck to them.
The companies going for NiMH or lithium include Toyota, Panasonic, Hitachi, Sanyo, and many others.
In the car industry it is a roll-call of all the big players.
Maybe they are all wrong, and the tiny venture capitalists will win.
The technology and testing of advanced lead acid, and it's present price, should not be conflated with old-style lead-acid though, nor entirely obsolete pre-crisis figures used to project demand.
seekingalpha.com/artic...
seekingalpha.com/artic...
seekingalpha.com/artic...
seekingalpha.com/artic... and
seekingalpha.com/artic...
I'd think you were misinformed. Since you have read and commented it's beginning to look like you're choosing to ignore facts that don't please you in an effort to support an argument that the experts don't agree with.
Davewmart, don't waste your time debately rationally with Petersen, he's already the laughing stock of the advanced battery world. I mentioned his name to a tech analyst several months ago when I first read an article of his, and the analyst said 'the guy's got no cred'.
On Jun 28 08:37 AM John Petersen wrote:
> Dave, if you hadn't commented on my prior articles including:
>
> seekingalpha.com/artic...
>
> seekingalpha.com/artic...
>
> seekingalpha.com/artic...
>
> seekingalpha.com/artic...
> and
> seekingalpha.com/artic...
>
>
> I'd think you were misinformed. Since you have read and commented
> it's beginning to look like you're choosing to ignore facts that
> don't please you in an effort to support an argument that the experts
> don't agree with.
> jack
'I know very few people that can perform a net present value analysis. I know even fewer who go looking for a new car with the idea that they're going to drive it for five to eight years.'
I think that liqiud fuel is going to get real expensive quicker than we could hope, and 5$ gallon here in the USA will be the new base within 2-3 yrs. If that comes to be, people will have less money for others purchases and vehicles will be held for atleast a dozen years, and people will stock up on duct tape.
And that also means that people will want to buy the lowest cost battery technology that gets the job done- seems like Pb based systems for the bulk of it.
Thanks, and when is the EB&T etf coming out?
With that in mind, I have a question for you about Exide. I have seen that you prefer to talk technology and market economics and typically stay away from discussing a particular company's balance sheet, income statement, or other company-specific financial elements.
As I'm sure you're aware, the XIDE has been on a real skid lately and I'm wondering if you'd care to comment. I know they had a really bad quarter and the release of those results would explain a significant, immediate decline. However, XIDE has been falling consistently for several weeks now and it makes me wonder if there is something going on behind the scenes that I have missed.
It occurs to me that with the advantages to this market that you describe and the way the stock has been beaten up, if Exide was able to get their house in order this could be one of the best opportunities available today. Or, if they suffer critical mismanagement, it could be time to walk away.
Thanks again for all your great work.
john s. gordon, the people who can afford to be trendy will be with us always. The rest of us will have to make do as best we can with the alternatives that work in our budgets.
a. palmer jr., new technology is as you point out essential. We need to make the investments today so that the solutions will be there in 2020. But in the process we need to be honest with the people who are making the investments about the time, effort, risk and additional capital that will be required before their investments bear fruit in the form of manufacturing profits.
isaac, I floated the ETF idea past Tom and Charles and they both think that the sector is small enough that a DIY portfolio would be easier and less expensive than an ETF. Since that kind of work is outside my experience, I'll have to defer to my betters.
I fear you may be right about future gas prices and the need for car buyers to be far more judicious in their purchases. But in a brave new world of increased savings and tightened credit standards, it would seem incongruous to think the great majority will choose to spend more to maintain the status quo instead of adjusting their consumption patterns to reduce waste whenever possible; to reduce, reuse and recycle.
Thanks for your continued reporting. Have watched how batteries have been adopted into hand tools in the construction industry (or what is left of it now) for over 30 years and price seems to always win over the customer other than a few early adopters. Keep pushing!
In the fiscal year just ended Exide had net sales of $44 per share and a gross profit margin of roughly 18.5% on sales. Unless you expect the automotive OEM market to stay in the dumps for years, you have to assume that Exide will come roaring back, particularly as its European automotive OEM customers begin buying higher margin batteries for their micro hybrid product lines.
To be clear, this isn't a trial solely for improving battery performance. They will be studying the feasibility of PHEVs by way of tracking and period diagnostic testing of a small fleet of PHEVs. Obviously, ModEnergy will be focused mostly on the functions of the batteries. The trial is set to last 4 years.
I think this is an excellent idea and more such studies should be done. There are several points that this study suggests to me: 1) EnerSys believes that the market for Li-Ion energy storage will grow as suggested by their increasing investments in research, development, and manufacturing of Li-Ion batteries, batteries of all sizes for a multitude of functions; 2) though one has to be careful about drawing too much in the way of conclusions based on a study trial like this, the 4 year time span suggests to me that EnerSys doesn't believe there is any rush to try to crank out a slew of Li-Ion car batteries, particularly based on present day technology; 3) it should be stated that the vast majority of EnerSys's revenue comes from Lead-Acid batteries and though they are wisely covering their bases, there's no reason to believe that EnerSys is planning on changing their primary revenue market anytime soon. I have to assume that collectively the good people at EnerSys know more about the battery market than all of us.
Here's a link to an article regarding the study:
www.modenergy.com/news...
plugsandcars.blogspot....
For example, in his 2011 projections, a heavy HEV would have a 1.4 kWh Li-ion battery. A Prius uses a 1.3 NiMH battery which is constrained to 40% to 60% state of charge (SOC), i.e., only 0.26 kWh of useful storage, in order to extend the NiMH battery cycle life. Since Li-ion, e.g., LiFePO4, has over 5 times the cycle life of NiMH, a 1.4 kWh battery constrained to 40 to 60% SOC would be overkill and, market-wise, with an inflated $2,200 per kWh price, a bit of a show-stopper.
For perspective on a 0.26 kWh (1/4 of a kWh) range of charge, consider that a 3,000 lb. Prius would only require less than 0.05 kWh (1/40 of a kWh), including all losses - drive train etc., to go from zero to 30 mph, around which point the gas engine kicks in.
The fact is that all of the announced plans for PHEVs and EVs are essentially first round validation tests that are designed to generate real world performance data for both Li-ion battery developers and OEM manufacturers. Right now, about the only thing the industry can say for sure is that Li-ion has enough long-term potential to justify the time, effort and investment that will be required to move the idea forward by spending enough money to get a reasonable sample of vehicles into the hands of a reasonable sample of drivers who will then use them under a variety of real world operating conditions. Some of the tests will work well and others will work less well. As the things that work and/or don't work become more clear, we'll see a second generation and then a third.
The draft DOE roadmap that I referenced a couple weeks back described the process as follows:
"Encouragement of niche markets for domestically produced batteries: DOE EERE will also work with other federal and state agencies and commercial concerns to identify an “entry market” for advanced batteries. Understandably, large auto manufacturers will be reluctant to purchase a battery that has not been tested over a significant number of vehicle miles. A number of federal, state, and private organizations could serve as starter markets. Among those are state fleets, city buses, utility fleets, USPS vehicles, FedEx, UPS, and other private fleets, and the U.S. military. An initial order of 1,000 to 10,000 batteries per year for several years could serve to establish the viability of a new battery, or of a new domestic facility producing an existing technology."
NorthernPiker, Anderman's AABC is the premier event in the world for first tier OEMs that are involved or interested in the HEV, PHEV and EV markets. Advocates criticize him for the same reason they criticize me; they don't like hearing that the technology is not adequately proven and the economics don't work at current gas prices. The mere fact that a perspective is unpopular does not mean that it's wrong. I would also note that Anderman's market analysis is in the mid-range of the short term estimates I've seen.
Currently advocates hope that Li-ion batteries will be able to handle a wider range of SOC constraints than NiMH. They also hope that Li-ion batteries will have four or five times the cycle life. Until Li-ion batteries are built into several thousand vehicles and tested for a period of three to five years, the SOC constraints and cycle life estimates will be conjecture and theory rather than established fact. Even the Volt will be constrained to 65% of theoretical battery capacity and leave room for error on both the charge and discharge sides. With time and testing we will know what the constraints are. But it will take adequate time and testing.
We are at the beginning of a 10 year cycle that may eventually lead to the mass market implementation of Li-ion battery technology in cars with plugs. It's a good start, but it's only a start.
Lead acid batteries have been starting cars under all conditions for the last 75 years. The only difference with a micro hybrid is that the battery will need to start the engine more frequently. Using a more durable second generation product to do the same job the first generation product has done for decades is no big deal.
If anyone starts talking about using lead-carbon as a traction battery, as opposed to using it as a starter battery, we'll be talking about an entirely different kettle of fish and far more extensive testing will be necessary.
Fromn Greencar congress:
"Sanyo To Hike NiMH Battery Output 3.5x in FY09 Due to Hybrid Car Demand
29 June 2009
Nikkei. Sanyo Electric Co. will more than triple its production of NiMH batteries for hybrids, citing growing demand for these vehicles.
In fiscal 2008, Sanyo made such batteries for hybrid cars at a rate of 1 million units a month. And when it announced its business results in mid-May, the company said it would boost production by 150% and make 2.5 million units a month in fiscal 2009. But now, Sanyo has decided to boost production by 250% to a monthly rate of 3.5 million batteries in fiscal 2009.
It said it will invest several billion yen to expand production lines at its Sumoto plant, in Hyogo Prefecture, which is the only plant where it makes NiMH batteries for hybrid cars.
Sanyo supplies NiMH batteries to Honda and Ford, and is looking for more customers."
seekingalpha.com/artic...
Currently China produces over 90% of the world's lanthanum and has imposed export taxes that the US is taking to the WTO. It doesn't strike me as a metal companies like Sanyo can buy at will at affordable prices.