APEC 2015
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
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).
Note: Nothing stated in this brief is an official viewpoint of the US
Department of Energy or any other official US government entity.
This slide does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information
2
Why are We Here?
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?
This slide does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information
3
Key Questions Driving Our Work
1
Who in
the US? is
in the NA technology
supply chain for
advanced, traction
drive PE and motors?
5
High skill
job
creation?
How might all partners
optimize US job creation
in PE and motors over
time?
4
New
Partners?
With whom can
government catalyze a
more competitive US
PE and motors supply
chain?
At what
mfr. cost?
2
Can NA PE and motors
supply chain be globally
competitive?
Sustainable
competitive
edge? How can
3
the NA PE and motors
industry thrive globally
over time?
This slide does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information
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 databases, 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 datasets.
This work has been underway for several years under DOE-VTO sponsorship.
This slide does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information
5
From Whom Do We Seek Input?
To-date, 130+ in-depth conversations,
executed over the last three years,
with following types of organizations:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Sample for illustration only:
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
Have we spoken to you? If not, please contact
cwhaling@synthesispartners and we will be happy to do so!
This slide does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information
6
Bottom Line Up-Front
OEMs
Tier 1s
Tier 2s
Tier 3s
Tier 4s and Below:
Sub-components and
engineered raw
materials
The N.A. PE supply chain is an unstable environment because it sits on an
extremely narrow base, causing critical, single-string dependencies.
This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information
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 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
Hitachi Cable America Inc. (HCA)
* Focus is on automotive traction drive applications specifically. This supplier list is continuously revised and updated.
This presentation does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information
8
Percent of All Traction Drive Inverters
Installed by OEMs In xEVs, By Location of
Inverter Supplier’s HQ: 2010-2014
China
USA
Canada
England
Taiwan
Canada [0.2%]
Germany
Korea
China [1.3%]
England [near 0%]
Germany [5.2%]
Japan [87.1%]
Korea [3.4%]
Japan
Taiwan [<0.01 %]
USA [2.8%]
SYNTHESIS PARTNERS ©
Source: SP Global xEV Database (Sept. 2014) ©.
9
Ranking of Traction Drive Inverter Suppliers,
Based on OEM Inverter Installations in xEVs
Sold Globally and Produced Globally, CY 2013
Traction Drive Inverter Supplier
Location of Supplier's HQ
Percentage of Global xEVs
Produced with Supplier’s Inverter
Toyota
Denso
Mitsubishi
Toshiba
International Rectifier (since acquired by, Infineon)
Hyundai Mobis
Hitachi
Continental
Bosch
Meidensha
Calsonic Kansei
Keihin
Renault/Nissan
Edrive
Siemens
Dajun
BYD
Zhongke Shenjiang
Weiteli
Unite
Magna
General Motors
Tesla Motors
LSIS
Honda
Delta
Delphi
Nanche
Japan
Japan
Japan
Japan
USA
Korea
Japan
Germany
Germany
Japan
Japan
Japan
Japan
China
Germany
China
China
China
China
China
Canada
USA
USA
Korea
Japan
Taiwan
USA
China
35.10%
21.90%
11.80%
5.70%
5.20%
4.40%
4.40%
3.30%
1.80%
1.50%
1.10%
0.70%
0.70%
0.70%
0.40%
0.30%
0.20%
0.20%
0.20%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.10%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
SYNTHESIS PARTNERS ©
Source: SP Global xEV Database (Sept. 2014) ©.
10
Ranking of Traction Drive Inverter Suppliers,
Based on OEM Inverter Installations in xEVs Sold
in the US and Produced in NA Plants, CY 2013
Traction Drive
Inverter Supplier
Location of
Supplier's HQ
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%
SYNTHESIS PARTNERS ©
Percentage of xEVs Sold in Percentage of xEVs Produced in
US with Supplier’s Inverter NA Plants with Supplier’s Inverter
Source: SP Global xEV Database (Sept. 2014) ©.
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
China
Canada
England
USA
Germany
Korea
Canada [<0.3%]
China [1%]
England [<0.1%]
Germany [6%]
Japan [87%]
Korea [3%]
Japan
USA [1%]
SYNTHESIS PARTNERS ©
Source: SP Global xEV Database (Sept. 2014) ©.
12
Distribution ofDistribu
Total
Company
Cost-Share
on of
Total Company Cost-Share
Investments Investments
Directly Related
to ARRA andand
DOE Funding,
Directly Related
to ARRA
DOE Funding,
By Company Type: 2010-2016
By Company Type: 2010-2016 (incl. estimates)
Other
0%
Tier 2-3
12%
OEM
6%
OEM
Tier 1
Tier 2-3
Other
Tier 1
82%
Total: $161.52M
(Not inflation adjusted.)
SYNTHESIS PARTNERS ©
Source: SP Global xEV Database (Sept. 2014) ©.
13
Distribution of Total
Company Investments Not Directly
Distribu on of Total Company Investments
Related to ARRA
and
DOE
Not Directly
Related
to ARRAFunding,
and DOE Funding,By Company
By Company Type: 2010-2016
Type: 2010-2016
(incl. estimates)
Other
0%
Tier 2-3
~1%
OEM
40%
OEM
Tier 1
Tier 1
60%
Tier 2-3
Other
Total: $2,492.62M
(Not inflation adjusted.)
SYNTHESIS PARTNERS ©
Source: SP Global xEV Database (Sept. 2014) ©.
14
Comparison
Domestic
vs.Total
Transplant
Total NA PE
Comparison ofof
Domes
c vs. Transplant
NA PE Company Investments,
By Total Investments Iden
By Year
Company Investments,
Byfied*,
Total
Investments
Identified*, By Year (incl. estimates)
$ Millions
(not adjusted for infla on)
450
419.33
416.83
396.83
400
350
294.92
300
254.98
Transplants
250
203.75
210.45
206.24
204.52
200
Domes cs
150
100
40
50
0
0
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
4.52
1.77
2015
2016
2017
Source: Synthesis Partners, LLC (2014)
* 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.
SYNTHESIS PARTNERS ©
Source: SP Global xEV Database (Sept. 2014) ©.
15
Topics for Discussion
Based on this Ongoing NA
PE and Motors Supply Chain
Analysis
Nothing stated herein is an official viewpoint of the US Department of Energy
or any other official US government entity.
This slide does not contain any proprietary, confidential, or otherwise restricted information
16
Topics for Discussion (1)
Analysis regarding DOE-Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO)
option space, given analysis of market data and 130+ indepth 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
Thank you.
We look forward to answering
your questions.
Steven Boyd
Vehicle Technologies Office,
U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC
Chris Whaling
Synthesis Partners, LLC, Reston, VA
19
APEC 2015 Appendix
Additional North American
Power Electronics and
Motors Supply Chain
Rankings and Results
Please contact:
Chris Whaling
Synthesis Partners, LLC
11250 Roger Bacon Drive, Suite 2,
Reston, VA 20190
E: cwhaling@synthesispartners.com
SYNTHESIS PARTNERS, LLC