Upload
others
View
9
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Assessing the North American
Traction Drive Power Electronics
and Motors Supply Chain
A co-presentation by:
Steven Boyd
DOE Vehicle Technologies Office, Washington, DC
&
Chris Whaling
Synthesis Partners, LLC, Reston, VA
APEC 2015
Overview of Contents
1. The questions driving our work regarding the North American
(NA) supply chain for power electronics (PE) and motors.
(Steven Boyd/DOE)
2. Current view of trends and data regarding the questions we
are asking about the NA PE and motors supply chain. (Chris
Whaling/SP).
3. Selected next steps and discussion. (Combination).
This slide does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information
Note: Nothing stated in this brief is an official viewpoint of the US
Department of Energy or any other official US government entity.
2
Opportunity for a deeper dialogue between the private sector, government, academia and non-profits, regarding the following types of actionable questions:
What core competencies are missing from the North American (NA) PE and motors technology supply chain?
What might catalyze technology creation and job growth in the NA PE and motors supply chain?
Is the NA technology supply chain prepared to support a significant increase in demand for multi-industry advanced power electronics (PE) and motors? Why or why not?
What specific R&D and/or manufacturing support may be helpful to accelerate development of the NA PE and motors supply chain?
3
Why are We Here?
This slide does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information
Key Questions Driving Our Work
Who in the US? is
in the NA technology supply chain for
advanced, traction drive PE and motors?
At what mfr. cost?
Can NA PE and motors supply chain be globally
competitive?
Sustainable competitive edge? How can
the NA PE and motors industry thrive globally
over time?
New Partners?
With whom can government catalyze a more competitive US PE and motors supply
chain?
High skill job
creation? How might all partners
optimize US job creation in PE and motors over
time?
This slide does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information
1
3 4
2 5
4
Results Based on Integrated Analysis
of Private and Public Data
Private data employed:
Synthesis Partners’ (SP) three-year interview archive.
SP global network of experts.
SP network of industry sources (330 companies).
SP company-data and market datasets.
Commercially available data-bases, extended and refined by SP.
Public data employed:
Company annual reports and
public filings.
Public market studies and
literature.
Internet search (English,
some Chinese and
Japanese).
Conferences and seminars.
Federal, state and local data-
sets.
This slide does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information 5
This work has been underway for several years under DOE-VTO sponsorship.
From Whom Do We Seek Input?
• Top global automotive OEMs
• 10s of global automotive Tier 1s
• 100s of automotive and related Tier 2-4s
• Universities and non-profit research organizations
• DOE National Labs (ORNL, NREL, Argonne, PNNL)
• USCAR Electrical and Electronics Tech Team (EETT)
• DOE and other USG executives
• Other experts
To-date, 130+ in-depth conversations,
executed over the last three years,
with following types of organizations:
This slide does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information
Have we spoken to you? If not, please contact
cwhaling@synthesispartners and we will be happy to do so!
6
Sample for illustration only:
Bottom Line Up-Front
This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information
The N.A. PE supply chain is an unstable environment because it sits on an extremely narrow base, causing critical, single-string dependencies.
OEMs
Tier 2s
Tier 4s and Below: Sub-components and
engineered raw materials
Tier 1s
Tier 3s
7
Core Companies Involved in the NA
Traction Drive PE* Supply Chain II-VI Advanced Materials
Alpha Advanced Materials (AAM)
Amphenol Interconnect Products Corp.
Analog Devices, Inc.
Arkansas Power Electronics International, Inc.
Bicron Electronics Co.
Bosch Rexroth
Calsonic Kansei North America, Inc.
FIAT (formerly Chrysler)
Cree, Inc.
Delphi Automotive LLP
DENSO Manufacturing Tennessee, Inc. (DMTN)
Dow Corning Electronic Solutions
Fabrico
Fairchild Semiconductor
Ford Motor
Freescale Semiconductor, Inc.
Fuji Electric Corp. of N.A.
General Motors
GeneSiC Semiconductor, Inc.
Hitachi Cable America Inc. (HCA)
Hitachi Automotive Systems America
Hitachi Metals North Carolina, Ltd.
Intersil
IXYS Corp.
Kemet Electronics Corp.
Kongsberg Automotive
Magmotor
Magna International of America, Inc.
Methode Electronics, Inc.
Mitsubishi Electric USA
ON Semiconductor
Positronic Industries Inc.
Powerex
Rinehart Motion Systems
Rogers Corp.
SBE, Inc.
Silicon Laboratories, Inc.
Superior Essex, Inc.
Tesla
Toshiba International
This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information
* Focus is on automotive traction drive applications specifically. This supplier list is continuously revised and updated. 8
Percent of All Traction Drive Inverters
Installed by OEMs In xEVs, By Location of
Inverter Supplier’s HQ: 2010-2014
Source: SP Global xEV Database (Sept. 2014) ©. SYNTHESIS PARTNERS ©
Canada
China
England
Germany
Japan
Korea
Taiwan
USA
Canada [0.2%]
China [1.3%]
England [near 0%]
Germany [5.2%]
Japan [87.1%]
Korea [3.4%]
Taiwan [<0.01 %]
USA [2.8%]
9
Ranking of Traction Drive Inverter Suppliers,
Based on OEM Inverter Installations in xEVs
Sold Globally and Produced Globally, CY 2013
Source: SP Global xEV Database (Sept. 2014) ©.
Traction Drive Inverter Supplier Location of Supplier's HQ Percentage of Global xEVs
Produced with Supplier’s Inverter Toyota Japan 35.10%
Denso Japan 21.90%
Mitsubishi Japan 11.80%
Toshiba Japan 5.70%
International Rectifier (since acquired by, Infineon) USA 5.20%
Hyundai Mobis Korea 4.40%
Hitachi Japan 4.40%
Continental Germany 3.30%
Bosch Germany 1.80%
Meidensha Japan 1.50%
Calsonic Kansei Japan 1.10%
Keihin Japan 0.70%
Renault/Nissan Japan 0.70%
Edrive China 0.70%
Siemens Germany 0.40%
Dajun China 0.30%
BYD China 0.20%
Zhongke Shenjiang China 0.20%
Weiteli China 0.20%
Unite China 0.10%
Magna Canada 0.10%
General Motors USA 0.10%
Tesla Motors USA 0.10%
LSIS Korea 0.10%
Honda Japan 0.00%
Delta Taiwan 0.00%
Delphi USA 0.00%
Nanche China 0.00%
10 SYNTHESIS PARTNERS ©
Ranking of Traction Drive Inverter Suppliers,
Based on OEM Inverter Installations in xEVs Sold
in the US and Produced in NA Plants, CY 2013
Source: SP Global xEV Database (Sept. 2014) ©. SYNTHESIS PARTNERS ©
Traction Drive Inverter Supplier
Location of Supplier's HQ
Percentage of xEVs Sold in US with Supplier’s Inverter
Percentage of xEVs Produced in NA Plants with Supplier’s Inverter
Toshiba Japan 8.40% 34.80%
Hitachi Japan 4.80% 26.60%
Denso Japan 12.80% 25.10%
Keihin Japan 0.90% 4.60%
Renault/Nissan Japan 2.30% 3.00%
Toyota Japan 20.70% 2.70%
Bosch Germany 0.70% 1.20%
Mitsubishi Japan 1.10% 0.90%
Magna Canada 0.20% 0.60%
Tesla Motors USA 1.80% 0.50%
Hyundai Mobis Korea 3.50% 0.00%
Continental Germany 0.40% 0.00%
Meidensha Japan 0.10% 0.00%
General Motors USA 0.10% 0.00%
11
Percent of All Traction Drive Motors,
Installed by OEMs in xEVs
Sold Globally and Produced Globally,
By Location of Motor Supplier’s HQ: 2010-2014
Source: SP Global xEV Database (Sept. 2014) ©. SYNTHESIS PARTNERS ©
Canada
China
England
Germany
Japan
Korea
USA
Canada [<0.3%]
China [1%]
England [<0.1%]
Germany [6%]
Japan [87%]
Korea [3%]
USA [1%]
12
OEM6%
Tier182%
Tier2-312%
Other0%
Distribu onofTotalCompanyCost-ShareInvestmentsDirectlyRelatedtoARRAandDOEFunding,
ByCompanyType:2010-2016
OEM
Tier1
Tier2-3
Other
Total: $161.52M (Not inflation adjusted.)
13
Distribution of Total Company Cost-Share Investments
Directly Related to ARRA and DOE Funding,
By Company Type: 2010-2016 (incl. estimates)
SYNTHESIS PARTNERS © Source: SP Global xEV Database (Sept. 2014) ©.
OEM40%
Tier160%
Tier2-3~1%
Other0%
Distribu onofTotalCompanyInvestmentsNotDirectlyRelatedtoARRAandDOEFunding,
ByCompanyType:2010-2016
OEM
Tier1
Tier2-3
Other
Total: $2,492.62M (Not inflation adjusted.)
14
Distribution of Total Company Investments Not Directly
Related to ARRA and DOE Funding, By Company
Type: 2010-2016 (incl. estimates)
Source: SP Global xEV Database (Sept. 2014) ©. SYNTHESIS PARTNERS ©
0
40
254.98
419.33 416.83
396.83
203.75 206.24
294.92
210.45 204.52
4.52 1.77
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
$Millions(notadjustedforinfla on)
Source:SynthesisPartners,LLC(2014)
ComparisonofDomes cvs.TransplantTotalNAPECompanyInvestments,ByTotalInvestmentsIden fied*,ByYear
Transplants
Domes cs
* Investments include both ARRA/DOE-related company cost share and non-ARRA/DOE company investments, with estimates for 2015 and 2016. This data covers aggregate NA investments by the core NA PE companies, and does not identify the level of
investment in traction drive PE activity specifically. Estimates for part of 2014 and through 2016.
15
Comparison of Domestic vs. Transplant Total NA PE
Company Investments, By Total Investments
Identified*, By Year (incl. estimates)
SYNTHESIS PARTNERS © Source: SP Global xEV Database (Sept. 2014) ©.
Topics for Discussion
Based on this Ongoing NA
PE and Motors Supply Chain
Analysis
This slide does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information 16
Nothing stated herein is an official viewpoint of the US Department of Energy
or any other official US government entity.
Topics for Discussion (1)
Analysis regarding DOE-Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) option space, given analysis of market data and 130+ in-depth interviews regarding supply chain gaps and constraints shows:
Most important constraints (available separately from SP) are “driving” the market responses to any new technology adoption or transition, and thus are critical drivers of VTO technology transition success;
Most important constraints have the least adequate solution-sets provided by sources, and are likely to be a permanent fixture for VTO planners; and
It is highly recommended that VTO seek approaches to “constraint proof” any gap-filling plans and investments (easier said than done).
Practically speaking: “How will a new NA investment plan survive the constraint test?”
This slide does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information 17
Topics for Discussion (2)
Current awareness about the most important gaps (available from SP separately) provide a data-driven basis for:
Recurring roundtables to address: “What might be done to fill a gap; How, When, Why and by Whom?”
Working with new partners, particularly those with a lot of skin in the game.
Opportunity to evaluate the likelihood that a VTO R&D effort will transition, based on “constraint-proofing” and “gap-relevance” testing.
We are at a threshold re: NA PE and motors supply development because we clearly see gaps, constraints and solution specifics, meaning:
We see strong interest by NA domestic and transplant sources to engage – in specific ways – on addressing gaps.
Opportunity to leverage quantified data in a measurable way, including by VTO regarding executing solutions to specific gaps.
Significant and growing understanding about partners’ ideas, interests and objectives with regard to future work that might catalyze the NA PE and motors supply chain.
This slide does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information 18
We look forward to answering your questions.
19
Thank you.
Steven Boyd
Vehicle Technologies Office,
U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC
Chris Whaling
Synthesis Partners, LLC, Reston, VA
APEC 2015 Appendix
Additional North American Power Electronics and Motors Supply Chain Rankings and Results
SYNTHESIS PARTNERS, LLC
Please contact:
Chris Whaling
Synthesis Partners, LLC
11250 Roger Bacon Drive, Suite 2,
Reston, VA 20190