Impact of electric passenger automobiles on utility system loads, 1985--2000

An important barrier to electric vehicle (EV) sales is their high purchase price compared to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. We conducted total cost of ownership (TCO) calculations to study how costs and sales of EVs relate to each other and to examine the role of fiscal incentives in reducing TCO and increasing EV sales. We composed EV-ICE vehicle pairs that allowed cross-segment and cross-country comparison in eight European countries. Actual car prices were used to calculate the incentives for each model in each country. We found a negative TCO-sales relationship that differs across car segments. Compared to their ICE vehicle pair, big EVs have lower TCO, higher sales, and seem to be less price responsive than small EVs. Three country groups can be distinguished according to the level of fiscal incentives and their impact on TCO and EV sales. In Norway, incentives led to the lowest TCO for the EVs. In the Netherlands, France, and UK the TCO of EVs is close to the TCO of the ICE pairs. In the other countries the TCO of EVs exceeds that of the ICE vehicles. We found that exemptions from flat taxes favour big EVs, while lump-sum subsidies favour small EVs.

Well-to-wheel greenhouse gas emissions of electric versus combustion vehicles from 2018 to 2030 in the US

Factors influencing global transportation electrification: Comparative analysis of electric and internal combustion engine vehicles

The urgency of sustainable, energy-efficient transportation has become extremely important as the US 1 and Global 2 energy sectors review their 2035-2040 phase-out of fossil fuel use. Top Global vehicle manufacturers have released a timeline to limit production for diesel and petrol-based three vehicles as early as 2024 4. The 2022 United States fuel costs increase reignited consumer interest in electric and hybrid transportation 5. Still, consumers are met with a limited understanding of the environmental impact expected with the fuel transition to electric transportation changes. CURRENTLY, the US has 275 million registered gas vehicles; 1.5 million electric vehicles 6. This means nearly 300 million electric automobiles will soon be introduced into the US Energy infrastructure within the next decade. Currently, the EPA approves two charging systems for residential EV charging options 7, SAE Electric Vehicle Conductive Charge Coupler (SAE J1772) Level 1, charging up to 120VAC, and Level 2, charging up to 240VAC. Level 3 direct-current (DC) Fast Charging, primarily provided by commercial providers, requires 480VAC and is not recommended for residential use due to its high energy costs 8. EPA regions in the United States experience increased electrical grid disturbances such as climate emergencies, seasonal infrastructure grid spikes, and commercial usage. The inevitable increase in EV charging raises concerns about current US federal and state policies based on the specific environmental impact of each US EPA region to support the eGrid subregion 9 preparations for expanding energy needs of an increased electric vehicle supply. Introduction By 2030, the electric vehicle will become a part of our daily necessities and social needs. The implementation of EVs can introduce similar culture-shifting changes seen with the expanded smartphone use in the 2000s or create many concerns that arose with social media in the late 2010s. Should EVs dramatically affect transportation patterns, environmental impact, energy needs, and economic changes? Can society understand the responsibility for equipment that can have profound implications if not understood? While we can assume these changes can create a greener outlook for vehicle emissions until we see the effects of gas-to-electric transitions, EVs' actual impact on our social patterns can verge on speculation. This review identifies the manufacturing impact, maintenance, and charging needs; as the economic and social equity factors for those who may lack the resources to maintain an electric vehicle responsibly. Furthermore, lastly, does the expansion of EV innovation inspire other technological and social improvements for inventors? Will this lead to re-engineering other appliances and equipment with the potential of a greener result? With the implementation of EVs, regulation must consider all aspects of accessibility to review if it improves or hinders social improvement. The maintenance of these vehicles, the accessibility of charging, the environmental regulatory needs for manufacturing, and safety are all things every potential consumer has to consider. When the expiration of gas-powered vehicles begins in 2030, regulators need to be prepared to transition prior vehicle concerns with expanded EV usage more seriously to ensure consumer safety and understand what risks come with greener expectations. Methods Regulations for electric vehicle (EV) manufacturers vary by country and region but generally aim to promote EV adoption and reduce transportation's environmental impact. Current regulations are the following: Emission standards: Local State and Federal regulations are to determine emission standards for EVs based on NEPA <> to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions per US region. Zero-emission vehicle (ZEV) mandates: Some countries and states have ZEV mandates, which require a certain percentage of new vehicle sales to be zero-emission vehicles. Financial incentives: US Department of Energy tax credits or rebates <> encourage consumers to purchase EVs. Charging infrastructure: Governments may provide funding or require the installation of charging infrastructure to support the growth of the EV market. Battery recycling: Governments may set regulations for battery recycling to ensure the proper disposal of used batteries and reduce the environmental impact of battery production. In the European Union, the European Commission has set a target of at least 30 million EVs on the road by 2025 and 60-70% of new cars to be emissions-free by 2030. In the United States, the Biden Administration has announced plans to promote the deployment of 500,000 charging stations by 2030. In China, the government has set a target of 20% of new vehicle sales to be EVs by 2025. During 2021, approximately 60,000 public electric vehicle (EV) charging stations function within the United States. The number of charging stations has been proliferating in recent years due to increased demand for EVs and efforts by governments and private companies to build out charging infrastructure. The 2021-2024 United States Presidential Administration stated plans to provide consumer access to 500,000 charging stations by 2030 eventually. This is compared to 120,000 to 130,000 working gas stations within the United States<>. The maintenance requirements for an electric vehicle (EV) are typically different from those of a traditional internal combustion engine vehicle. As such, some specialized equipment may be needed to maintain an EV properly. Here are some examples of equipment that may be required for EV maintenance: High-Voltage Disconnect Tool: To safely disconnect the high-voltage battery in an EV, a unique tool is required to safely cut power to the battery while preventing any electrical arcing. Charging Equipment: Depending on the type of EV and charging system, specialized equipment may be needed to charge the battery, including charging cables, charging stations, and DC fast-charging equipment. Diagnostic Tools: To diagnose issues with the electrical and charging systems in an EV, specialized diagnostic tools are needed that can communicate with the vehicle's onboard computers. Brake System Tools: Electric vehicles typically use regenerative braking, which can wear the brake system more than traditional internal combustion engine vehicles. As such, specialized tools may be needed to service the brake system on an EV. Tire Changing Equipment: Electric vehicles can be heavy due to the battery's weight; specialized tire changing equipment may be needed to properly adjust the tires on an EV. Discussion The average cost of an electric vehicle (EV) can vary widely depending on the model and its features. In 2021, the average price of a new EV in the United States was around $55,000. Not including EV operating costs, costs for hybrid-fuel considerations, diagnostics, and general maintenance can offset the higher upfront cost compared to internal combustion engine vehicles over time. The Department of Energy has provided financial incentives, such as tax credits or rebates, to encourage EV purchases. The cost of recharging an electric vehicle (EV) can vary widely depending on several factors, including the local cost of electricity, the size of the battery, and the charging rate. As a rough estimate, it can cost anywhere from $5 to $15 to charge an EV, depending on the specific circumstances. This can range from $5 to $8 for a small, hatchback-style EV with a 30 kWh battery to $15 or more for a large SUV with a 100 kWh battery. It is important to note that the cost of charging an EV is still typically lower than the cost of fueling an internal combustion engine vehicle with gasoline. Additionally, many electric utilities offer time-of-use rates that allow EV owners to charge their cars during off-peak hours when electricity is less expensive. This helps minimize the cost of recharging an EV. The impact of electric vehicles (EVs) on electric bills will depend on several factors, including the electric utility's rate structure, the EV owner's driving habits, and the source of the electricity used for charging. The additional costs of an EV will increase a household's electric consumption and, therefore, its electric bill. However, the impact on the electric bill will be influenced by the cost of electricity in the local area, the size of the EV battery, and how often the EV is charged. It is estimated that charging an EV can add $30 to $50 per month to a household's electric bill. However, the actual cost can be higher or lower depending on the specific circumstances.

Securing Platinum-Group Metals for Transport Low-Carbon Transition

As many countries transition to electric vehicles (EVs) to reduce tailpipe emissions from internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs), both vehicle types continue to generate non-exhaust particulate matter (PM), including tire wear, brake wear, road surface wear, and particularly road dust resuspension. Among these, road dust resuspension is a major contributor to non-exhaust PM. While factors such as vehicle weight and drivetrain configuration have been extensively studied in fleet-level research, direct comparisons between ICEVs and EVs of the same model have not been explored. This study investigates the effects of drivetrain, vehicle weight, and payload on road dust resuspension emissions from ICEV and EV models. Two experimental approaches were employed: (1) acceleration from 0 to 60 km/h, and (2) a simulated real-world driving cycle (RDC). Each test was conducted under both light and heavy payload conditions. The results show that the EV consistently emitted more PM than the ICEV during both acceleration and RDC tests, based on factory-standard vehicle weights. Under identical vehicle weight conditions, the EV demonstrated higher PM resuspension levels, likely due to its higher torque and more immediate power delivery, which increases friction between the tires and the road, particularly during rapid acceleration. Both vehicle types exhibited significant increases in PM emissions under heavy payload conditions. These findings underscore the importance of addressing non-exhaust emissions from EVs, particularly road dust resuspension, and highlight the need for further research into mitigation strategies, such as vehicle lightweighting.

<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">The rising demand for electric vehicles (EVs) has pushed automakers to prioritize visual brand consistency across both EVs and internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. A main design factor which is influenced by this trend is the front grille. In order to achieve uniform aesthetic looks, passenger car manufacturers often reduce the front grille openings and limit airflow. This closed grille style is common in electric vehicle. However, this creates challenges for internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles with snorkel-type air intake systems, leading to reduced airflow and higher temperatures in the engine bay and intake air which eventually gets sucked in the engine resulting in low volumetric efficiency.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">Maintaining a cooler intake air is vital for ICE performance. Adjusting snorkel position and airflow patterns in low temperature zones ensures the engine receives air at low temperatures. This improves the combustion efficiency, throttle response and eventually it reduces the risk of knock. This study emphasizes the need to control intake air temperature in such a way that the air intake system supports to meet performance and emissions targets.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">In our study, we use simulation tools such as computation fluid dynamics (CFD) and experiments in order to demonstrate that the ICE vehicle grille design having restricted air flow which are similar to the electric vehicles, increases the air temperature that enters into the snorkel of air intake system. This pre-heated air that enters into engine reduces its efficiency, power output and also might eventually affect the emissions. The findings in our study quantifies the thermal penalty that are linked to this design standardization.</div><div class="htmlview paragraph">In order to overcome these issues, the study recommends tailored front-end module thermal management strategies for ICE vehicles particularly for air intake system. The approach optimizes airflow and minimizes heat gain in snorkel of air intakes and hence preserving engine performance without sacrificing the visual consistency between EV and ICE models.</div></div>

Eco-driving is a key strategy for reducing energy consumption and emissions in electric vehicles (EVs) and internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. However, research gaps remain regarding its effectiveness across different driving environments, vehicle types, transmission systems, and contexts. This research evaluates eco-driving efficiency in urban and interurban settings, comparing small (Caceres) and large (Madrid) cities and assessing EVs ICE with direct, manual, and automatic transmissions. The authors conducted a large-scale driving experiment in Spain, with over 500 test runs across different road types. Results in the large city show that eco-driving reduces energy consumption by 30.4% in EVs on urban roads, benefiting from regenerative braking, compared to 10.75% in manual ICE vehicles. Automatic ICE vehicles also performed well, with 29.55% savings in local streets. In interurban settings, manual ICE vehicles achieved the highest savings (20.31%), while EVs showed more minor improvements (11.79%) due to already optimized efficiency at steady speeds. The small city showed higher savings due to smoother traffic flow, while single-speed transmissions in EVs enhanced efficiency across conditions. These findings provide valuable insights for optimizing eco-driving strategies and vehicle design. Future research should explore AI-driven eco-driving applications and real-time optimization to improve sustainable mobility.

Objectives: This study evaluates consumer attitudes toward different electrified vehicle variants compared to internal combustion engine vehicles, considering economic, environmental, and user-related decision criteria.Theoretical Framework:The study applies multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approaches, particularly the PROMETHEE method, to understand consumer preferences and the role of behavioral factors in electromobility adoption.Method:A quantitative research approach was employed, collecting data through a structured online questionnaire survey (N=1000). Respondents' preferences were analyzed using PROMETHEE ranking algorithms to assess their evaluations of electric, hybrid, and combustion vehicles. Results and Discussion: The findings indicate that economic criteria, including purchase price and operating costs, play the most significant role in vehicle selection. Internal combustion engine vehicles received the highest preference, followed by MHEVs, BEVs, and PHEVs. Driving frequency and prior experience with electric vehicles significantly impact consumer attitudes, with more exposure leading to a more favorable view of electrified options.Research Implications:The study highlights the need for targeted marketing strategies that emphasize economic benefits and practical advantages of electric vehicles. Strategies such as test drives and consumer education may help shift preferences toward electromobility. Originality/Value:This research contributes to understanding consumer decision-making in emerging electromobility markets, offering insights for policymakers and automotive firms to design better incentives and marketing campaigns. The paper discusses one of the essential sustainability activities in the automotive industry, namely the production and sale of electric vehicles. Car makers are trying to meet this challenge but are facing consumer disinterest in these products. Researchers are racing to come up with suitable communication tools for electromobility, but the starting point is consumer behaviour and influences on the decision to buy an electric vehicle. Based on the data coming from the conducted survey, the preferences of various groups of drivers are explored, and the most suitable car type for them is assigned. The paper compares the results of the decision analysis with the intuitive evaluation obtained directly from drivers. The study results showed that for consumers deciding between an internal combustion engine car or an electric car, the purchase price of the car is still an important decision criterion.

Electric vehicles (EVs) are regarded as zero emission vehicles due to the absence of exhaust emissions. However, they still contribute non-exhaust particulate matter (PM) emissions, generated by brake wear, tire wear, road wear, and resuspended road dust. In fact, because EVs are heavier than internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs), their non-exhaust emissions are like to be even higher. While total PM emissions, including exhaust and non-exhaust PM emissions, from ICEVs and EVs have been compared based on the emission factors (EFs) listed in national emission inventories, there have been no comparisons based on experimental determinations.In this study, exhaust and non-exhaust emissions generated from a gasoline ICEV, diesel ICEV, and EV were experimentally investigated. The results showed that the EFs for the total PM emissions of ICEVs and EV were dependent on the inclusion of secondary exhaust PM, the brake pad type, and the regenerative braking intensity of the EV. When only primary exhaust PM emissions were considered in vehicles equipped with non-asbestos organic (NAO) brake pads, the total PM10 EF of the EV (47.7–49.3 mg/V·km) was 10–17 % higher than those of the gasoline ICEV (42.3 mg/V·km) and diesel ICEV (43.2 mg/V·km). However, in vehicles equipped with low-metallic (LM) brake pads, the total PM10 EF of the EV (49.2–57.7 mg/V·km) was comparable or lower than those of the gasoline ICEV (56.3 mg/V·km) and diesel ICEV (57.2 mg/V·km). When secondary PM emissions were included, the EF was always significantly lower for the EV than ICEVs. The total PM10 EF of the EV (47.7–57.7 mg/V·km) was lower than those of the gasoline ICEV (56.5–70.5 mg/V·km) and diesel ICEV (58.0–72.0 mg/V·km). Since secondary PM particles are mostly of submicron size, the EFs of the PM2.5 fraction of the ICEVs (28.7–33.0 mg/V·km) were two times higher than those of the EV (13.9–17.4 mg/V·km).

<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">The need to control global warming by regulating automotive emission levels has led to a lot of changes in the policies of different countries globally, specifically the United States (US) and the European Union (EU). More recently, the governments have been strongly pushing the integration of Electric Vehicles (EVs) in the market to replace the conventional Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles for CO₂ emissions reduction, with the enforcement of 50% EV sales by 2030 in the US and complete 100% by 2035 in the EU for passenger cars. However, these policies are misleading by considering EVs as zero emission vehicles, as there is no such technology yet available that has zero emissions during its lifecycle. During the manufacturing phase, any vehicle produced gives out emissions, with EVs emitting even higher than the conventional ICE vehicles with their battery manufacturing. Further, during the use phase, there might be no Tank-to-Wheel emissions from the EVs due to zero tailpipe emissions, but they do have very high Well-to-Tank emissions from the electricity generation needed to recharge the batteries. On the other hand, hybridization is also a promising way for CO₂ emissions reduction. Using synthetic e-fuels, hybrids can have emission reductions much higher than using conventional fuels or even when compared to EVs on life cycle basis. Hence, in this study, we have evaluated the life cycle CO₂ emissions reduction potential with electric and e-fueled ICE vehicle as two different cases, varying their sales from 0 to 100%, according to the set EU and US targets, for the total car fleet of both the countries. The evaluation is done with 0D numerical simulations performed on GT suite, for 30 different drive cycles consisting of 10 urban, 10 sub-urban and 10 highway cases with GPS based vehicle speed information, for US as well as EU separately. Results shows that e-fueled ICE and e-fueled hybrid vehicles have greater CO₂ emissions reduction potential than EVs.</div></div>

The Aerospace Corporation, in support of the Department of Energy (DOE) Electric Vehicle Project, has undertaken two activities related to defining the possible characteristics of the mid-1980s electric passenger car. The first activity, an investigation of the potential performance and cost characteristics through computer modeling, was supported by the Argonne National Laboratory, General Research Corporation, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and NASA/Lewis Research Center. That investigation was restricted to a 4-passenger, all-electric car similar to the DOE Electric Test Vehicle-One (ETV-1) developed by the General Electric Company and the Chrysler Corporation. The study effort was completed in February 1981. The second effort currently underway is an electric vehicle (EV) applications research study that is part of a government/industry collaborative effort. Based on the computer modeling results, the state of technology for the mid-1980s, 4-passenger electric car could achieve an urban driving range of 80 to 100 miles with acceleration competitive with a comparable-size, diesel-powered car. Top speeds and ramp accelerations compatible with highway driving also appear achievable. These conclusions assume that the batteries being developed through DOE funding--improved lead-acid, zinc/nickel oxide, iron/nickel oxide, and zinc/chloride--will achieve their currently established performance goals in mass production. The purchase price of a 4-passenger electric car with a 100-mile range is projected to be at least 50 percent higher than that of a comparable internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle. However, life-cycle costs for a 4-passenger, 100-mile-range car are predicted to range from slightly lower to moderately higher than those of a comparable ICE vehicle depending on petroleum costs and the cost and cycle life of the batteries. The eventual cost and performance of the mid-1980s electric car will be influenced greatly by the trade-offs associated with battery weight and cost versus vehicle payload and range requirements. In general, cost and performance results tend to indicate the desirability of pursuing the development of a 2-passenger car and/or a less than 100-mile-range car if the market for these types of vehicles appears sufficiently attractive. For the second effort, The Aerospace Corporation will subcontract an electric vehicle applications research study to identify the vehicle attributes most likely to influence consumer purchasing decisions. The Statement of Work for this study was prepared by a Steering Committee composed of representatives of the major domestic automobile manufacturers, the EV supply industry, the electric utility industry, and other interested organizations. As part of this effort, it was necessary to define the characteristics of the mid-1980s electric car and its expected competition in that time frame. Vehicle characteristics were selected based on a consensus of the Steering Committee members. The projected characteristics of the baseline electric car defined by the Steering Committee agree quite closely with those predicted in the modeling work mentioned earlier. For the conduct of the study, it has been predicted that the baseline electric car will achieve a 75-mile range, accelerate somewhat more slowly than a comparable ICE vehicle, and perform satisfactorily on highways. The monthly ownership and operation cost (at current gasoline prices) and purchase price are estimated to be 30 and 50 percent higher, respectively. Assuming a more optimistic battery purchase price and replacement rate, the vehicle monthly cost is predicted to be equal to that of a comparable-size ICE vehicle. Competitive vehicles in the mid-1980s are assumed to be powered by gasoline, diesel, or an alternative fuel such as methanol. The fuel economy of these vehicles in urban driving is estimated to be 40 to 50 mpg, and the acceleration is projected to be similar to or somewhat slower than today's ICE vehicle. It is anticipated that the results of the applications study will help focus future DOE and industry research and development efforts on those areas that will most satisfy consumer needs.

PurposeTo model and analyze the dynamic response of an electric vehicle (EV) suspension system and compare it with a conventional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle, focusing on passenger comfort and safety.Design/methodology/approachBoth vehicles are modeled as quarter car (two DOF for EV) and half car (four DOF for EV and five DOF for ICE). The analysis includes vehicle–road and vehicle–bridge interaction dynamics using MATLAB Simulink and the Runge–Kutta method, incorporating various road profiles and disturbances.FindingsThe EV’s suspension system outperforms the ICE vehicle in ride comfort and road holding across various conditions, with better responses to road disturbances and reduced peak overshoot. These results highlight the advantages of EV designs in enhancing overall vehicle dynamics.Originality/valueThis study makes several novel contributions, including the mathematical modeling of a half-car model for an ICE vehicle that incorporates secondary unbalanced forces of the engine. It also explores a complex vehicle–bridge interaction system, considering both road roughness and sinusoidal bumps. Furthermore, it compares the dynamic responses of an equivalent EV model traversing this complex bridge, with a conventional ICE vehicle, providing new insights into the distinct characteristics of EV suspensions.

Research and efforts for implementing electric vehicles (EVs) are rapidly increasing. Most light goods vehicles (LGVs) in Singapore are diesel-propelled internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles in 2023. However, the number of electric light goods vehicles (eLGVs) is exponentially increasing, indicating a shift towards economically and environmentally resilient options. This study examines the combined economic, environmental, and operational impacts of implementing eLGVs in Singapore, which distinguishes from previous research that analysed each aspect individually. Considering data and inputs from a specific company, lifecycle cost and emissions analyses were conducted comparing EVs and ICE vehicles. In addition, a survey on operations was conducted targeting respondents with eLGVs in their fleet. Findings indicate that, in Singapore’s context, eLGVs can potentially reduce costs, and savings grow with vehicle utilisation, assuming battery lasts 10-years with minimal degradation. Regarding the environmental impact, although the production of EVs results in higher greenhouse gas emissions, emissions from usage are much lower for eLGVs and further reduced with vehicle usage, resulting in overall lower emissions. Operational challenges identified relate to eLGVs charging time and infrastructure. Recommendations to motivate companies to transition to eLGVs are provided, and an ‘expected lifecycle emissions calculator’ created to compare various types of vehicles.

Electric vehicles (EVs) are revolutionizing road transport. They represented the most reliable and realistic option to decarbonize road transport in the last 10 years and look to be holding a promising future. EVs are in competition with internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, but they still have a lower performance, particularly in range, and they remain more expensive. To guarantee the EV development and make it a sustainable substitution to ICE vehicles, the EV industry and technology development had been mostly supported by governments’ subsidies. One of the main issues EVs are facing is that they depreciate much faster than ICE vehicles, principally due to rapid technological progress that drives the market on the one hand and, on the other, makes older EV models prematurely obsolete. The other variable that contributes to faster EV depreciation is subsidies. It is expected that the end of subsidies will bring the necessary leverage to slow down EVs fast depreciation due to the wider price gap between new and pre-owned EVs. Batteries, which make EVs a practical reality, play a major role in EV depreciation. Besides the possible degradation of EV batteries, the technology development and price drop give newer models better range at a lower cost. The second-hand EV market is a fair reflection of the fast depreciation of EVs; naturally, the two subjects should be studied correlatively. It may not be obvious to draw an obvious correlation, but it seems clear that the fast depreciation of EVs is one of the major reasons why the second-hand EV market is still minor. Depreciation is a major driver of the second-hand EV market. In this manuscript are presented the main aspects of EV depreciation, particularly those related to fast technological evolution, including batteries and subsidies, as well as the second-hand EV market.