north american power electronics and motors supply chain ... · arkansas power electronics...

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?


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?


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:


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


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


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)


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


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?”


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.


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

E: [email protected]

north american power electronics and motors supply chain ... · arkansas power electronics...

Documents