Hyundai Motor Group to invest $87B over next 5 years; 44 electrified vehicles; new EV development system; hydrogen plans
02 January 2020
Hyundai Motor Group (HMG) will invest more than KRW100 trillion (US$87 billion) over next 5 years—KRW20 trillion (~US$17.4 billion) annually to enhance its leadership in vehicle electrification, autonomous driving and mobility services, said Euisun Chung, Executive Vice Chairman (EVC) of the Group, at the company’s 2020 New Year ceremony at its headquarters in Seoul.
The Group’s electrified lineup, which consisted of 24 models in 2019, will be expanded to 44 models by 2025, including 13 hybrids, six plug-in hybrids, 23 battery electric vehicles and two fuel-cell electric vehicles.
The BEV lineup will increase to 23 models by 2025 from last year’s nine models, with the first dedicated BEV model to be launched in 2021.
A new EV architecture development system will be introduced and applied to models slated for launch in 2024.
Through the new EV architecture development system, Hyundai Motor Group will innovate its cost structure for electric vehicles by sharing components in their application to various models. It will also increase profitability and volume of each model through lineup optimization. It will streamline operation networks and introduce new sales methods, while securing a flexible production system that can respond to the fluctuating global demand.
This year, the Group will further bolster the sales of electrified models, adding hybrid and plug-in hybrid variants to its best-selling SUV models, including Kia Sorento, Hyundai Tucson and Hyundai Santa Fe.
Also included in the 2020 New Year’s message was the plan to pursue new technologies and projects that can provide human-centered smart mobility solutions in a wide range of areas, including robotics, Urban Air Mobility (UAM) based on the use Personal Air Vehicles (PAV) and smart city solutions, all of which would progress alongside automobile-based innovations.
We will push for open innovation that accommodates diverse capabilities outside the company. We will go anywhere there are the new technology, vision and talent to support our innovation drive.
—Euisun Chung
The plan focuses on securing Hyundai’s leadership in the vehicle electrification, expansion of hydrogen industry ecosystem and self-driving commercialization, as well as the progressive expansion of its mobility services businesses.
In particular, in our fuel-cell electric vehicle business, where we boast the world’s top technological competitiveness, we will hit our stride by providing fuel-cell systems to customers not only in the automotive industry but also in other sectors. Furthermore, we will add momentum to expanding the hydrogen ecosystem and its infrastructure by cooperating with partners around the world.
—Euisun Chung
In 2019, the Group signed an agreement with Cummins Inc. to develop and commercialize electric and fuel-cell powertrains combining Hyundai’s fuel-cell system and Cummins’ electric powertrain, battery and control technologies. The Group will start exporting its fuel-cell systems to Cummins and enter the US market this year, followed by the European market.
In the future, the Group plans to supply fuel-cell systems to the transport sector—covering vehicles, vessels, railcars and forklifts— and power-generation sector—covering electricity production and storage—thereby delivering some 200,000 fuel-cell systems per year around the world by 2030. The Group will simultaneously establish a 500,000 units-per-year capacity for FCEV production in Korea.
The Group will strengthen its cooperation with partners in Korea such as Hydrogen Energy Network (HyNet), as well as partners overseas including Saudi Aramco, to expand the supply of hydrogen and charging stations. In addition, the Group will broaden its strategic collaboration with related enterprises around the world to set up hydrogen infrastructures.
The Group also aims to accelerate the development of the autonomous driving software technology and commercialize self-driving vehicles with SAE Level 4 and Level 5 technology in the near future to lead the industry.
In the autonomous driving industry which is the core of future vehicles development, we will attain the world’s top safety and technological innovation competitiveness through our U.S.-based venture to be jointly established with Aptiv, targeting the commercialization of the technology in 2023.
—Euisun Chung
After developing an autonomous driving platform by 2022, the Group will operate autonomous vehicles in select regions in 2023, and lead to commercial productions by the second half of 2024.
Hyundai Motor Group will kick-start its car-sharing business in full swing in Los Angeles this year through its mobility service company MoceanLab, which was established in LA last year. The car-sharing service allows people to freely rent and return cars in the city of LA. In major regions of Russia, the Group this year will expand the lineup of offered vehicles for its vehicle subscription service first unveiled in Moscow last year.
The Group will also expand collaboration with mobility platform companies in which it has strategically invested, such as Grab and Ola. In India, it will launch new mobility services in collaboration with Ola, and in Southeast Asia, offer EV car hailing services by expanding the supply to the region’s largest car-hailing firm, Grab. The Group supplied 200 units of Hyundai Kona Electric SUVs to Grab last year for its car-hailing service in Singapore, and will expand the coverage to major Southeast Asian countries such as Indonesia this year.
No sign there of the backpeddling on fuel cells and hydrogen so often prophesied by battery only advocates.
They are being compelled by Government mandate to make BEVs, but it is obvious that they feel that fuel cells and hydrogen have a big part to play.
Since battery costs are far more static than enthusiasts claim, that is unsurprising
Posted by: Davemart | 02 January 2020 at 05:33 AM
Bloomberg NEF tracks battery prices objectively, shows impressive cost reduction, from $1,000/kW in 2010 to $154/kW in 2020.
Tesla Model S now achieves 370 mile range. Rivian delivering 400 mile range truck in 2020. Ford Mustang Mach E will also provide long range capability.
200+ mile range cars now available from GM, Nissan, Jaguar, Audi, Porsche, Hyundai, Kia, Volvo. More coming in 2021.
1,000 mile travel in California costs:
Hydrogen: $210
according to California Fuel Cell Partnership
Gasoline: $160
according to GasBuddy.com
Electric: $30
according to LADWP
One of these technologies is going to win. Gentlemen, place your bets.
Posted by: electric-car-insider.com | 02 January 2020 at 06:45 AM
Correction:
...from $1,000/kWh in 2010 to $156/kWh in 2019.
They expect the price of an average battery pack to be $94/kWh by 2024 and $62/kWh by 2030.
Posted by: electric-car-insider.com | 02 January 2020 at 06:51 AM
I'm with you, ECE. Only my fallback from electricity is liquid fuel, a la PHEV.
Davemart thinks mfgrs are being forced to make BEVs, but NOT forced to make HFCVs. I'm sure he's wrong: HFCV has been pushed by money in the USA since "Freedom Car" around 2001. But money does not overrule physics; that's why the USA has a lot more BEVs than FCVs despite what the "government" (oil industry) demanded from 2001 onward.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 02 January 2020 at 06:48 PM
Completely agree. States have a ZEV (zero emissions vehicle) mandate not an BEV (battery electric vehicle) mandate.
Any of these manufacturers, including Tesla, could have chosen to build FCEVs. Those that chose to; Toyota, Honda, Hyundai, Mercedes, have sold minuscule volumes to an increasingly disenchanted customer base.
The company that built quality, desirable BEVs and matching charging infrastructure has racing fans and has been well rewarded in the marketplace and stock market.
If the infrastructure to fuel the cars doesn’t exist, it’s pretty hard to field a competitive product.
To say nothing of the performance limitations of the drive train, cost of fuel, cost of FC stack, life limited 10,000 PSI tanks etc, etc, etc.
If Nikola pulls off building a nationwide H2 charging infrastructure for their trucks, I’ll applaud louder than anyone else. And then I’ll buy two.
But until someone ships a viable FCEV I can drive daily without limited fuel availability e.g. solid reliable local, reasonably available cross country, I’ll go with what works.
I still own a couple of PHEVs - 2018 Volt, Outlander (BMW i3 REx went to the kids). They are completely viable vehicles. I’d recommend them to anyone who needs the fuel flexibility and doesn’t mind the occasional oil change and tuneup.
It’s a good time to drive electric.
Posted by: electric-car-insider.com | 02 January 2020 at 11:06 PM
We get buckets of claims about falling battery prices based on surveys of parties interested in pushing long range BEVs as the 'coming thing' so that subsidies and mandates continue.
What we don't get up bottom up costings showing any such thing, which is unsurprising as the notion of battery costs comparable with ICE are based on technologies we just don't have, for instance in the DOE projections which assume lithium air and such.
What we also don't have are batteries you can go out and buy at anything like the claimed prices per KWh, which incidentally also tend to ignore the difference between cell cost and total battery cost.
The solution which works and drastically reduces fuel use and pollution at the moment is hybrids.
But lots of folk are keen on the subsidies available for plug ins.
Posted by: Davemart | 02 January 2020 at 11:43 PM
@ ECI: Can only endorse what you have stated. It's not only a price comparison which underlines the operating costs of EVs. No other mode is as efficient as a BEV. Additionally, with a BEV you separate your dependencies from "big oil". Almost anyone can do solar power but not H². H² is a substitute for oil derivatives to keep consumers in the dependencies as ever.
Posted by: yoatmon | 03 January 2020 at 05:49 AM
Steadily falling battery prices, at both cell and pack level, are a historical fact, no claims needed. Even a consumer not remotely aware of analyst reports can saw the Nissan Leaf go from ~70 mile range in 2010 to 226 mile range in 2019, a 300% increase. Price of the car stayed about the same, mid-thirties.
For folks interested in more detailed reporting on cells and packs:
https://about.bnef.com/blog/behind-scenes-take-lithium-ion-battery-prices/
Non-plug hybrids are fine, cutting your gas bill in half is a good thing. But cars with a plug give consumers access to $0.03 mile transportation.
As Yoatmon points out, pair a plu-in car with solar and you have cleaner, cheaper fuel more secure from price and supply variations and disruption than H2 or oil.
Hope everybody is ready for gas prices to go up drastically considering current geopolitical news and an unstable US presidents that likes to pick fights.
Posted by: electric-car-insider.com | 03 January 2020 at 06:41 AM
I was ready for it in 2013. Given the bankruptcies in the oil patch, a spike in oil prices will save lots of drilling outfits even as it puts the brakes on SUV insanity and pushes consumers back towards sedans.
Might even move more plug-ins!
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 03 January 2020 at 09:04 AM
Just today the post in GCC describing funding for new technology research in California shows how much is needed to impement the ambitious target that H2 (vehicles) require to I.m.O. meet the domestic consumer market.
"The hydrogen systems must demonstrate an electricity-in and electricity-out solution in customer side of the meter applications (not just generate electrolytic hydrogen)."
Industry incl grid storage can use as much RE H2 as is likely to be achieved any time soon is beyond question. Global H2 demand is only going up.
I understand the battery advocates view that X(H2) funding reduces money available for other (batt ) research but we can walk and chew gum? Meanwhile spending on military is so many times greater and does nothing to make the world a safer place.
That does nothing for the rest not counting on ascention while hastening armageddon or end times.
Posted by: Arnold | 03 January 2020 at 11:35 AM
“They are being compelled by Government mandate to make BEVs, but it is obvious that they feel that fuel cells and hydrogen have a big part to play.”
The government subsidies for FCEVs in SK were over the equivalent of $29,000 per vehicle! The government was paying millions for H2 stations. Free H2 stations! Reuter’s reported the downside of the 5-7 minute refueling meant the next vehicle would have to wait 20 minutes for pressure to build up. If that is so then you’re looking at about two vehicles per hour.
The reality is that at this point FCEVs are being kept alive on subsidies. That is true in SK and CA but I don’t think that is necessarily a bad thing. It is good to have a backup plan and they are making adequate progress to justify life support. We can reEValuate in a couple years.
In the meantime BEVs have demonstrated commercial viability in the premium markets but need to work their way down the food chain.
Posted by: Gasbag | 03 January 2020 at 02:14 PM
The governments recognize that H2 can be more than a niche or partial solution. There is no technical reason (no fundamental breakthroughs needed) that it cannot be applied at every scale you care to imagine and in every facet of the industrial energy economy. Conversely, BEVs have technical characteristics that will make them unacceptable for some users. They lack the flexibility of use as the current paradigm, particularly re speed of recharge.. Anyone requiring maximum uptime of an expensive capital asset will not be pleased. The charging time limitation is a very real issue.
Battery prices have indeed come down significantly over the last decade but expecting the same trend to continue is not wise. There is a very intense debate about the lower limit of battery price reductions given that we keep hearing about breakthroughs yet still are stuck with Li_ion which cannot get much below $100 per KWH with known, lab technology. Current Li-Ion lab technology has raw material inputs alone at best case $40 - 50 per KWH implying that any additional processing makes a number lower than $100 for a fully integrated battery extremely unlikely. We need a different chemistry for that. If we do not get to a max of $50 per KWH at the pack level, BEVs will be behind the ICEV price for somewhat similar usability. I consider equivalent usability to be the ability to travel 350-400 real highway miles (5 - 6 hours of travel) at the 75-85 mph prevailing travel speed of rural Interstates and the ability to be recharged in 10 minutes or less. When those conditions are met, the vehicle range/refueling characteristics won't need considered when planning long trips as is the case today with ICEVs,
Posted by: Sheldon A Harrison | 03 January 2020 at 07:58 PM
For all of those worrying about range and charging time, how comforting is this?
https://techxplore.com/news/2020-01-supercharging-tomorrow-team-world-efficient.html
Posted by: yoatmon | 04 January 2020 at 06:09 AM
SH> There is no technical reason (no fundamental breakthroughs needed) that it cannot be applied at every scale you care to imagine and in every facet of the industrial energy economy.
No consumer electronics application for H2, which is what drove the technical development and cost improvement of batteries.
The technology is not the barrier. H2 and battery electric vehicles both exist in the consumer marketplace. Cost of acquisition, cost of operation (fuel price $15/kg), reliability of fuel sources (lengthy station outages), performance of the vehicle (not exciting), longevity of the vehicle (life limited 10,000 psi tanks) are the issues holding back widespread H2 adoption.
Battery raw material cost is not the barrier you suggest. When the energy density doubles and quadruples, the material cost, absent exotic material requirements, stays flat.
Yoatmon’s sulfur post is a great example - it’s actually cheaper than the most popular current chemistries.
Nano structuring is being used to improve energy density with a reduction in materials.
Maximum uptime is not a requirement for consumer applications. Everyone needs to sleep.
Even in commercial driving use cases, those trucks have rest stop and meal break downtime which could accommodate 30 min charging profiles.
10 minute recharge is not a requirement for the vast majority of users, especially those willing to save $90 in fuel costs on a 500 mile trip.
Even so, Porsche has demonstrated 15 min charging and Electrify America has begun installing 350kW chargers. Not really necessary, but the roadmap is there.
EP has already made the case that for people who need quick refueling on long trips, there is a great solution available now.
Posted by: electric-car-insider.com | 04 January 2020 at 08:37 AM
We can deliver electric power to vehicles in motion. If you could top off every 50 miles, a 100-mile battery would serve for unlimited driving. If we had the will, we could start building today.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | 04 January 2020 at 09:25 AM