Understanding the Distributional Impacts of Vehicle Policy: Who Buys New and Used Alternative Vehicles?

The year 2015 marks a turning point in China s plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) or new energy vehicle (NEV) industry, with an explosive growth in both productions and sales, following the gloomy period of 2009-2012. The PEV production in 2015 reached a record level of nearly 380,000 units, a 352 % increase from 2014, making China the largest PEV market in the world. For the potential implications on energy and the environment, it is worth studying the driving forces of China s PEV market and understanding its future trajectory and dynamics. The key findings of this report are listed in the following. Though controversial, the government monetary incentives have played a significant role to impel China to be the largest light PEV (191,100 units) market in the world. Chinese vehicle buyers appear more price sensitive on PEVs. Inexpensive low-cost micro electric vehicles are the most popular vehicle model in China s PEV market (38.9 % of the PEV market in 2015). In contrast, the premium or luxury vehicles are more popular in the gasoline vehicle segment. In fact, China is expected to be the largest premium car market in 2016. The PEV sales growth is primarily possible because of the young domestic private-owned auto manufacturers, which are mostly located in south China. Top-tier conventional vehicle automakers in China appear to be less proactive in the PEV market, based on market shares. This is in clear contrast to the U.S. market, where major automakers are generally the primary players in the PEV market. The PEVs produced by the domestic automakers are concentrated in the low-end market segment, while the high-end vehicle segment is dominated by the foreign brands. At present, the substantial market growth and government subsidies afford the domestic entrants to quickly gain profits in the low-end segment. The PEV consumers in China are very sensitive to the vehicle price, thus prefer the PEVs with cheaper prices after government subsidies, and care less about the driving quality and comfort. In contrast, most PEV consumers in the United States (U.S.) have higher incomes, view the PEVs as a high-status symbol, and care less about the vehicle prices, and therefore welcome the premium PEVs more in the U.S. The PEV financial subsidies by the Chinese government are divided into three stages based on the strategic directions and policies. In 2009 2012, government incentives concentrated on the public fleet vehicles, while excluding the individual consumers from the subsidies in most cities. In 2013 2015, comprehensive central/local government incentives were extended to all vehicle purchasers including the individual buyers in most cities, which was conducive to the phenomenal growth of the PEV sales. For years 2016 to 2020, monetary incentives are being phased out and will be substituted by other non-monetary incentives (such as the standards for Chinese Cooperate Average Fuel Consumption and New Energy Vehicle Credits) for the sustainable development of the PEV market. The PEV subsidy fraud has drawn attention by the central government, which prompts the government to be more prudent about monetary incentives. With the advantage of high acceptance in the PEV market and integrated EV charging infrastructure, the region with better economic development brings a more aggressive PEV roll-out plan to the municipalities who are more willing to solve the local urban pollution while keeping the automotive market in sustainable growth. On the one hand, the local automakers are offered abundant subsidies from the Chinese government to those who intend to help the Chinese automotive industry seize the industrial upgrading opportunity to transform its manufacturing sector, and they have taken most shares of the PEV market. On the other hand, facing the trade barriers, the foreign automakers have dominated the premium PEV sales in China, although their total market shares in the PEV market are much less than the domestic automakers. In diverse selectable alternative fuel vehicle technologies, China has put its focus on the PEV technologies for the technological modernization in the automotive industry; the research and development in fuel cell vehicle technologies in China is less competitive compared with other countries such as Japan and the U.S. With the demand of batteries from the PEV automakers, the Chinese EV battery industry is aggressively expanding. It has risks in excessive production capacity, and faces the challenges from the competitors from Japan and South Korea.

The growing market for plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) features new models of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) with varying battery sizes and electric driving ranges. How are the various models being used in the real world? A common assumption in PEV impact analysis is that PEV owners will maximize their vehicle's utility by appropriately sizing the battery to their driving needs and by charging their vehicle as much as possible to recover the cost of the vehicle purchase. On the basis of these assumptions, a high correlation between PHEV owner use of the vehicle and the number of plug-in events is expected, and drivers of PHEVs with a small battery are expected to plug in more than do owners of vehicles with a larger battery and similar driving patterns. The assumptions presented are examined through a survey of more than 3,500 PEV owners conducted in California in May and June 2013. The online survey included extensive data on driving and charging behavior using web map questions. Owners of all PEV models on the market, including more than 600 Volts and 800 Prius Plug-Ins, were surveyed. The results show that small-battery PHEV electric vehicle miles traveled are lower than longer-range PHEV or BEV electric vehicle miles traveled not only because of battery size but also because of public charging availability and charging behavior. Higher electric-range PHEV and BEV drivers charge more often and report more charging opportunities in areas where smaller-battery PHEVs could not find chargers.

Insights into the characteristics of technologies and industrialization for plug-in electric cars in China

Who is buying electric vehicles? Who is buying new cars in general? Is the first group a subset of the second? What are the similarities and differences of the two groups? Can we use hybrid buyers to predict the future plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) market? This study explores the characteristics of new car buyer households who purchased a new vehicle in California during 2011-2012 comparing three main populations: internal combustion engine (ICE) buyers, hybrid buyers and PEV buyers. We show that PEV households have different socio-demographic characteristics than ICE buyers with, for example, higher income, higher education, and more new cars while hybrid owners are a middle group with characteristics that fall between those of ICE and PEV owners. We also found differences among PEV buyers. Pure battery electric vehicle (BEV) and plug-in hybrid electric (PHEV) households have similar sociodemographic characteristics but they are differentiated by driving characteristics and home location. The PEV market today is based on small number of buyers and small number of potential new car buyers. Targeting the potential car buyers can more rapidly increase the market, create a used market and will open PEV options to larger segments of the population.

This document describes a study conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory quantifying the charging station infrastructure required to serve the growing U.S. fleet of plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs). PEV sales, which include plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and battery electric vehicles (BEVs), have surged recently. Most PEV charging occurs at home, but widespread PEV adoption will require the development of a national network of non-residential charging stations. Installation of these stations strategically would maximize the economic viability of early stations while enabling efficient network growth as the PEV market matures. This document describes what effective co-evolution of the PEV fleet and charging infrastructure might look like under a range of scenarios. To develop the roadmap, NREL analyzed PEV charging requirements along interstate corridors and within urban and rural communities. The results suggest that a few hundred corridor fast-charging stations could enable long-distance BEV travel between U.S. cities. Compared to interstate corridors, urban and rural communities are expected to have significantly larger charging infrastructure requirements. About 8,000 fast-charging stations would be required to provide a minimum level of coverage nationwide. In an expanding PEV market, the total number of non-residential charging outlets or 'plugs' required to meet demand ranges from around 100,000 to more than 1.2 million. Understanding what drives this large range in capacity requirements is critical. For example, whether consumers prefer long-range or short-range PEVs has a larger effect on plug requirements than does the total number of PEVs on the road. The relative success of PHEVs versus BEVs also has a major impact, as does the number of PHEVs that charge away from home. This study shows how important it is to understand consumer preferences and driving behaviors when planning charging networks.

The transportation sector accounts for the largest percentage of energy use in the United States. Decreasing energy consumption across this sector, especially in commercial light duty transportation, is essential for the U.S. to gain energy independence. Recently, powertrain electrification with plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) have gained traction as an alternative due to their inherent efficiency advantages compared to the traditional internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV). Accounting for 500,000 vehicle on the road today, these PEVs will reduce oil imported into the U.S. by five billion gallons and save two billion dollars in fuel costs to consumers over their useful life. Though there are many different classes of PEV, the intent of this study is to focus on non-hybrid powertrains, or battery electric vehicles (BEVs). Despite rapid drops in cost within the BEV powertrain of over 4x in the last 10 years, the PEV market still only accounts for approximately 1% of new light duty vehicle sales annually. Though BEV powertrain costs are not quite at parity with the ICEV, another gap to wider adoption of BEVs that have been identified is the ability to refuel quickly, or to fast charge. Though the majority of recharging BEVs is done at home, having access to fast charge stations has a big impact on BEV utility from a consumer perspective. To address the fast charge barrier, charging at 350 kW, or extreme fast charging (XFC), has been proposed and will serve as the basis for discussion in this report. Studies have shown that in areas where drivers have access to 50 kW or 120 kW fast charge stations, annual electric vehicle miles traveled (eVMT) increased by over 25%, even in cases where fast charging was used for 1-5% of total charging events [1, 2]. Having access to these fast charge stations can help alleviate the “range anxiety” that is cited as a common reason for consumers to hesitate to buy a BEV. Though, to be truly competitive to the ICEV refueling experience, even higher power stations are necessary. These extreme fast charge stations (XFC) should be able to recharge a BEV in less than 10 minutes and provide approximately 175 additional miles of driving. However, this introduces a host of new challenges that need to be addressed. As a result, it is expected that packs designed to meet XFC will be significantly more expensive initially than BEVs optimized for range that can reach 140kW with current technology. From the battery cell to the power grid to which these 350 kW chargers are connected, this study will discuss the issues that need to be addressed at each level in order to implement a 350 kW charging network. Although this report is U.S.-focused, the findings should be applicable to other countries with mature automotive infrastructures.

Light-duty plug-in electric vehicles in China: An overview on the market and its comparisons to the United States

<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">China's plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) market with stocks at 7.8 million is the world's largest in 2021, and it accounts for half of the global PEV growth in 2021. The PEV market in China has dramatically evolved since the pandemic in 2020: over 20% of all new PEV sales are from China by mid-2022. Recent features of PEV market dynamics, consumer acceptance, policies, and infrastructure have important implications for both the global energy market and manufacturing stakeholders. From the perspective of demand pull-supply push, this study analyzes China's PEV industry with a market dynamics framework by reviewing sales, product and brand, infrastructure, and government policies from the last few years and outlooking the development of the new government’s 14th Five-Year Plan (2021-2025). From the demand side, small-sized sedans and compact sport utility vehicles with increased electric ranges are both popular for PEVs, and the electric range of over 60% of new battery electric vehicles in 2021 has been longer than 400 km. From the supply side, although foreign brands like Tesla are still competitive, the products by Chinese domestic automakers like BYD are becoming more attractive and cannibalizing the high-end market. However, the production capacity and cost of PEVs may be limited by the upstream of the supply chain – the battery manufacturing and supply chain inflation. In addition, it is also uncertain how much sales demand impacts will be caused by the potential global economic recession. The government firmly supports electrification and decarbonization of the vehicle industry by emphasizing the importance of the vehicle industry for promoting the greenhouse gas net zero by 2060. The dual-credit policy is regarded as the most critical regulation in a bid to restrain fuel consumption and promote PEV share. Still, the market is facing some technological obstacles, such as battery safety and driving range anxiety, before real prosperity. In addition, the Chinese electric vehicle market is seeing a trend toward the development of new technologies such as vehicle-to-X, autonomous driving, and connected vehicles.</div></div>

This study discusses the portion of fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) in the worldwide stock of vehicles on roads, particularly when compared to plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs), which comprise battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). The study considers the overall number of these e-mobility (electric mobility) vehicles, as well as within each of 4 transport modes, namely: (1) passenger light-duty vehicles (PLDVs or simply “cars”), (2) light commercial vehicles (LCVs or simply “vans”), (3) buses, and (4) trucks. The study also investigates the progress in the number of hydrogen refueling stations (HRSs) for FCEVs, and contrasts that with electric charging points (ECPs) for PEVs; during the years 2020, 2021, and 2022. While the number of worldwide FCEVs nearly doubled in 2022 compared to 2020, the ratio of FCEVs to PEVs declined from 0.3348% in 2020 to 0.2738% (less than 0.3%) in 2022. In 2022 also, the number of FCEVs was 0.3914% (less than 0.4%) of the number of BEVs, and 0.9113% (less than 1%) of the number of PHEVs. The worldwide fraction of PEVs with respect to the total vehicles (both electric and non-electric) in 2022 was approximately 1.816% (split into 1.2704% for BEVs and 0.5456% for PHEVs), while the fraction of FCEVs was approximately 0.0050% (only 5 FCEVs per 100,000 vehicles). In terms of the convenience to supply the vehicles with energy, the number of worldwide hydrogen refueling stations nearly doubled in 2022 compared to 2020. Similarly, the worldwide number of electric charging points for use with PEVs nearly doubled in 2022 compared to 2020. However, the ratio of HRSs to ECPs declined from 0.0415% in 2020 to 0.0378% in 2022. The worldwide average FCEVs per HRS in 2022 was 70.69, while the worldwide average PEVs per ECP in 2022 was 9.75. Thus, PEVs are much more attractive than FCEVs for a driver concerned about the network of hydrogen stations. Furthermore, owners of PEVs have an additional option of recharging their vehicles at home (which is not applicable for FCEVs). Between 2020 and 2022, PEVs were dominated by BEVs, with 69.95% of PEVs being BEVs in 2022. This 2022 fraction of BEVs in PEVs reflects a consistent increase from the 2021 fraction (68.34%) and from the 2020 fraction (67.23%). Considering the worldwide increase in these e-mobility vehicles from 2020 to 2022, the number of FCEVs increased by a factor of 2.072, PHEVs increased by a factor of 2.322, and BEVs increased by a factor of 2.636, PEVs increased by a factor of 2.533. Thus, out of the 3 e-mobility vehicle technologies (FCEVs, PHEVs, and BEVs), BEVs had the strongest presence as well as the fastest growth.

This study discusses the portion of fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) in the worldwide stock of vehicles on roads, particularly when compared to plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs), which comprise battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). The study considers the overall number of these e-mobility (electric mobility) vehicles, as well as within each of 4 transport modes, namely: (1) passenger light-duty vehicles (PLDVs or simply “cars”), (2) light commercial vehicles (LCVs or simply “vans”), (3) buses, and (4) trucks. The study also investigates the progress in the number of hydrogen refueling stations (HRSs) for FCEVs, and contrasts that with electric charging points (ECPs) for PEVs; during the years 2020, 2021, and 2022. While the number of worldwide FCEVs nearly doubled in 2022 compared to 2020, the ratio of FCEVs to PEVs declined from 0.3348% in 2020 to 0.2738% (less than 0.3%) in 2022. In 2022 also, the number of FCEVs was 0.3914% (less than 0.4%) of the number of BEVs, and 0.9113% (less than 1%) of the number of PHEVs. The worldwide fraction of PEVs with respect to the total vehicles (both electric and non-electric) in 2022 was approximately 1.816% (split into 1.2704% for BEVs and 0.5456% for PHEVs), while the fraction of FCEVs was approximately 0.0050% (only 5 FCEVs per 100,000 vehicles). In terms of the convenience to supply the vehicles with energy, the number of worldwide hydrogen refueling stations nearly doubled in 2022 compared to 2020. Similarly, the worldwide number of electric charging points for use with PEVs nearly doubled in 2022 compared to 2020. However, the ratio of HRSs to ECPs declined from 0.0415% in 2020 to 0.0378% in 2022. The worldwide average FCEVs per HRS in 2022 was 70.69, while the worldwide average PEVs per ECP in 2022 was 9.75. Thus, PEVs are much more attractive than FCEVs for a driver concerned about the network of hydrogen stations. Furthermore, owners of PEVs have an additional option of recharging their vehicles at home (which is not applicable for FCEVs). Between 2020 and 2022, PEVs were dominated by BEVs, with 69.95% of PEVs being BEVs in 2022. This 2022 fraction of BEVs in PEVs reflects a consistent increase from the 2021 fraction (68.34%) and from the 2020 fraction (67.23%). Considering the worldwide increase in these e-mobility vehicles from 2020 to 2022, the number of FCEVs increased by a factor of 2.072, PHEVs increased by a factor of 2.322, and BEVs increased by a factor of 2.636, PEVs increased by a factor of 2.533. Thus, out of the 3 e-mobility vehicle technologies (FCEVs, PHEVs, and BEVs), BEVs had the strongest presence as well as the fastest growth.

Our way of life is on a collision course with geological limitations. Ever since petroleum geologist M. King Hubbard correctly predicted in l956 that U.S. oil production would reach a peak in l973 and then decline (1), scientists and engineers have known that worldwide oil production would follow a similar trend. Today, the only question is when the world peak will occur.The U.S. transportation system depends almost entirely (∼97%) on oil (2), and foreign imports have risen steadily since l973 as the demand increased and domestic supplies decreased. Today, more than 60% of U.S. oil consumption is imported and the dependence on foreign oil is bound to increase. There is no question that once the world peak is reached and oil production begins to drop, either alternative fuels will have to be supplied to make up the difference between demand and supply, or the cost of fuel will increase precipitously and create an unprecedented social and economic crisis for our entire transportation system.Among energy analysts the above scenario is not in dispute. There is, however, uncertainty about the timing. Bartlett (3) has developed a predictive model based on a Gaussian curve similar in shape to the data used by Hubbard as shown in Fig. 1. The predictive peak in world oil production depends only on the assumed total amount of recoverable reserves. According to a recent analysis by the Energy Information Agency (4), world ultimately recoverable oil reserves are between 2.2×1012 barrels (bbl) and 3.9×1012bbl with a mean estimate of the USGS at 3×1012bbl. But changing the total available reserve from 3×1012bbl to 4×1012bbl increases the predicted time of peak production by merely 11yr, from 2019 to 2030. The present trend of yearly increases in oil consumption, especially in China and India, shortens the window of opportunity for a managed transition to alternative fuels even further. Hence, irrespective of the actual amount of oil remaining in the ground, peak production will occur soon and the need for starting to supplement oil as the primary transportation fuel is urgent because an orderly transition to develop petroleum substitutes will take time and careful planning.Some analysts claim that hydrogen can take the place of petroleum in a future transportation system (56). But in previous publications, the authors have shown that hydrogen is inferior as an energy carrier to electricity (7) and that the energy efficiency of hydrogen vehicles, especially if the hydrogen were produced by the electrolysis of water, is considerably less than the efficiency of hybrid electric vehicles or fully electric battery vehicles (7). The results of these analyses have subsequently been confirmed by other studies, particularly those by Hammererschlag and Mazza (8) and Mazza and Hammerschlag (9).Before hydrogen could become a useful automotive fuel, an entirely new system of energy production and distribution on twice the scale of today’s electric power generating stations and distribution grid would have to be built. It has been estimated that a hydrogen transmission and storage system to fuel only 50% of the automotive fleet by the year 2020 would cost at least $600 billion (10) and that to make the hydrogen by electrolysis would require doubling the electric power generation rate (11). There is no question that a paradigm shift in fuel for worldwide transportation is imperative, and before embarking on such a huge investment, it is prudent to compare the hydrogen option with alternative ways to provide the energy and/or fuel needed by the transportation system.This paper presents and analyzes two generic approaches to meet the future demand of the U.S. ground transportation systems that do not require hydrogen, can use existing transmission infrastructure, and can eventually reduce CO2 emission drastically with a renewable energy system. Both these pathways are examined from an energetic and environmental perspective and are shown to be superior to the hydrogen economy on both these criteria. The first approach is a demand-side strategy based on the use of electric hybrid vehicles, an energy-efficient vehicle configuration, combined with a liquid fuel. This approach could use the existing liquid-fuel distribution system, but would need an expanded and robust electric-transmission system, albeit on a smaller and much more economical scale than a hydrogen fuel-cell infrastructure. The second approach is a supply-side strategy, based on synthetic fuel generation that can use initially coal or natural gas as the energy source, but can eventually transition to renewable biomass sources. The two pathways are not mutually exclusive, but can be combined into a secure and efficient future transportation system as will be shown in this paper.Cradle-to-grave energy efficiency is an important criterion for comparing energy-source utilization pathways because if a pathway is less efficient than another pathway that accomplishes the same final goal from the same amount of primary energy, then the less efficient pathway requires more primary energy to accomplish the same end. Hence, if the primary energy source is nonrenewable, then the less efficient pathway leaves less of the energy source for the future. It also means that more pollution is produced and the cost for the final end use is likely higher. However, if the primary energy source is renewable, then the efficiency does not change the amount of primary energy available in the future and energy efficiency does not have the same significance for renewable energy sources as for nonrenewable sources. Efficiency is, of course, important because the cost of delivering the energy is usually strongly influenced by the system efficiency. But a comparison between renewable and nonrenewable pathways should be based on economic and environmental criteria, such as cost and CO2 generation.In order to demonstrate the urgency for initiating a plan to supplement oil as soon as possible, we have made calculations to predict the potential gasoline savings based on the very optimistic scenario that, at an arbitrary starting time, all new light vehicles sold in the U.S. would be either hybrid or electric vehicles. The term “light vehicles” as used here includes all automobiles, family vans, sports utility vehicles, motorcycles, and pickup trucks. This scenario is an extreme case to show that because of the slow turnover of the light-vehicle fleet, it takes a long time for a significant impact on gasoline consumption to occur. The following cases are considered: (i) All new vehicles sold are gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles (HEV); (ii) all new vehicles sold are plug-in, gasoline-electric hybrids with a 20mil electric-only range (PHEV20); (iii) all new vehicles are diesel-electric hybrids (DHEV) with diesel fuel from coal or biomass; (iv) all new vehicles are plug-in, diesel hybrids with a 20mil all-electric range (PDHEV20); or (v) all new vehicles are all-electric vehicles (EV).The calculations use a rate of new vehicle sales of 7% of the fleet per year, a retirement rate of 5%/y, and a resulting net increase in total vehicles of 2%/y. These numbers represent an approximate fit to the light-vehicle sales and total number data for the years 1966 to 2003 reported by the U.S. government (12). All calculated results are presented in percentages and are therefore independent of the time at which all new vehicle sales switch to hybrids or EVs. When new car sales begin to be all hybrids or all EVs, it is assumed that the future rate of retirement of vehicles from the all-gasoline fleet is 5%/y of the remaining gasoline vehicles. The all-gasoline fleet is therefore completely retired 20 years later. The yearly rate of retirement of hybrid or EV vehicles is then 5% of the total number of vehicles at the beginning of that year, less 5% of the number of gasoline vehicles at the beginning of year zero. Thus, in year zero, no hybrid or EVs are retired.The following average vehicle mileage values were used: gasoline fleet, 21mpg (miles per gallon); gasoline HEV, 41mpg; gasoline PHEV 20, 56mpg of gasoline (13). A mileage is not needed for the EVs, or the diesels, since neither use gasoline, and we assume that the diesel fuel will be derived from nonpetroleum sources, as discussed in Secs. 34.The results of these calculations are presented in Figs. 234. Figure 2 shows the ratio of the total number of vehicles in the fleet, the number of all-gasoline vehicles in the fleet, and the number of hybrid or EV vehicles in the fleet to the total number in the fleet as a function of time. The total number of vehicles increases by over 60% in 25 years at the assumed 2%/y net increase while the number of all-gasoline vehicles decreases linearly from 100% initially to 0% after 20y. The number of hybrid or EV vehicles increases from 0% initially to 58% in 10y and 100% in 20y. This graph emphasizes how long it takes for the introduction of a new vehicle type to show a significant impact on the composition of the vehicle fleet, even when only the new vehicle types are sold after a starting point. This slow turnover of the fleet is the fundamental reason that the effects on gasoline consumption show up so slowly.Figure 3 shows the annual reduction in gasoline consumption as a function of time. Note that for HEVs the annual savings in gas consumption is 29% of the gasoline consumption for a conventional fleet in the tenth year and becomes constant at 49% in the twentieth year. Figure 3 also shows that the plug-in gasoline hybrid scenario saves 41% of the usage in the tenth year and increasing to 64% in the twentieth year and thereafter. Clearly, 10y after starting to sell only hybrid or EV vehicles, the impact of the HEV or PHEV20 scenarios on gasoline consumption is still rather small. After 20yr, the impact becomes significant, but gasoline consumption still remains high for gasoline hybrids. The total number of vehicles and the consumption (with the assumption of no efficiency improvement) by an all-gasoline fleet will have increased by more than 60%, but even the PHEV20 savings is only 40% of the zero-time annual-rate of gasoline consumption. The DHEV, DPHEV20, and EV scenarios show 59% annual savings in the tenth year and 100% in the twentieth year and thereafter. As would be expected, the nongasoline vehicles have a much greater impact on gasoline usage than gasoline-using HEVs, and the impact occurs more rapidly.Figure 4 gives the cumulative gasoline savings for the various scenarios compared to an all-gasoline fleet. HEVs save cumulatively 16% after 10yr and 20% after 20 years. Because of the cumulative savings, HEVs would use in 28yr the same amount of gasoline as an all-gasoline fleet would use in 20yr. PHEV20s save 21% after 10yr and 38% after 20yr. These results emphasize the relatively small effect on gasoline consumption that these highly optimistic scenarios have in the first decade after implementation. DHEVs, DPHEV20s, and EVs, the options without any gasoline use, save cumulatively as much as 32% after 10yr and 59% after 20yr.A 2004 report of the Committee on Alternatives and Strategies for Future Hydrogen Production and Use (14), prepared under the auspices of the National Research Council (NRC), concluded that the vision of a hydrogen economy is based on the expectation that hydrogen can be produced from domestic energy sources in a manner that is “both affordable and environmentally benign.” An analysis of currently available technologies for achieving this goal (7) showed that irrespective of whether fossil fuels, nuclear fuels or renewable technologies are used as the primary energy source, hydrogen is inefficient compared to using the electric power or heat from any of these sources directly. Given these facts, it is important to note that the NRC report also stated that “If battery technology improves dramatically, all-electric vehicles might become the preferred alternative (to fuel cell electric vehicles).” The report also noted that “Hybrid vehicle technology is commercially available today and can therefore be realized immediately.” If synthetic fuels made from coal, natural gas, or biomass were used in place of gasoline in hybrid vehicles, the consumption of oil could be reduced immediately and eventually eliminated. In the light of these observations, it is therefore important to examine what the current state of battery technology is, what can be expected in the near future, and how these developments affect the potential of hybrid vehicle performance and economics.To assess the performance of a battery for electric vehicles, the following characteristics have to be considered: Specific energy, a measure of the battery weight in units of watt hours per kilogramEnergy density, a measure of the space the battery occupies in watt hours per cubic meterCapacity, the total quantity of energy a battery can store and later deliver in watt hoursEfficiency, the ratio of energy that can be extracted from the battery to the initial energy input to change the batterySpecific power, the rate at which the battery can deliver the stored energy per unit weight of battery in watts per kilogramBattery lifecycle, the number of charge and discharge cycles that a battery can sustain during its lifeA significant effort to replace oil as a transportation fuel was undertaken ten years ago in California, when the California Air Resources Board [CARB] mandated that a certain percentage of all vehicles sold in California had to have zero tailpipe emissions (15). At that time the only technology available to meet the mandate was the all battery electric vehicle [BEV], which required no gasoline for its operation. The experiment to mandate the use of BEVs in California failed because the technology was not ready for commercialization. The best battery available in 1995 (fluted-tubular lead acid) had an energy storage density of 35Wh∕kg, a specific power of 100W∕kg, and a life cycle of 600-1000cycles. With these battery characteristics, the maximum range of a BEV was only 50mil, and the battery pack required replacement every 25,000mil at a cost of between $7000 and $8000 for an average BEV (16). Since that time, new batteries have been developed by Panasonic, VARTA, and SAFT, that have twice the energy-storage density, three times the specific power, and two or three times the cycle life of the lead acid batteries sold in California, as shown in Table 1 (13).In addition to the advanced batteries, a new concept has been developed that combines the best qualities of hybrid and battery vehicle technologies. This “plug-in hybrid vehicle” can recharge vehicle batteries during off-peak hours, and since most cars are parked 90% of the time, there are plenty of charging opportunities at both home and the workplace. Furthermore, a large portion of the electric generation infrastructure is only needed for peak demands and lays idle much of the time. Hence, if charging automobile batteries occurred during off-peak hours, they would level out the load of the electric production system and reduce the average cost of electricity (17). Moreover, plug-in hybrid vehicles are not range limited because they have an engine that can refuel at existing gas stations to use when the batteries are low.The efficiency of a PHEV depends on the number of miles the vehicle travels on liquid fuel and electricity, respectively, as well as on the efficiency of the prime movers according to1η=energytowheelsenergyfromprimarysource=f1η1η2+f2η3η4where η1 is the efficiency of the primary source of electricity, η2 is the efficiency of transmitting electricity to the wheels, f1 is the fraction of energy supplied by electricity, f2 is the fraction of energy supplied by fuel =(1−f1), η3 is the efficiency of primary source to fuel, and η4 is the efficiency of fuel to wheels.PHEVs can be designed with different all-electric ranges. The distance, in miles, that a PHEV can travel on batteries alone is denoted by a number after PHEV. Thus, a PHEV20 can travel 20mil on fully charged batteries without using the gasoline engine. According to a study by EPRI (13), on average 1/3 of the annual mileage of a PHEV20 is supplied by electricity and 2/3 by gasoline. The percentage depends, of course, on the vehicle design and the capacity of the batteries on the vehicle. A PHEV60 can travel 60mil on batteries alone, and the percentage of electric miles will be greater as will the battery capacity.The tank-to-wheel (more appropriately, battery-to-wheel) efficiency for a battery all-electric vehicle according to EPRI (13) is 0.82. In a previous analysis by the authors (18), the efficiency in 1993 was only 0.49. Comparing these results shows the enormous improvements in the electric component efficiency (controller 87%, battery 90%, charger 90%, drivetrain 90%;). When these numbers are multiplied by a hybrid-weight-times-idle factor of 1.3 (19), the overall efficiency of an electric hybrid is 82%, the same as that used in the EPRI study (13). It is important to note that currently all-electric vehicles can be nearly twice as efficient as when (18) was published.Given the potentials for plug-in hybrid vehicles, the Electric Power Research Institute (13) conducted a large-scale analysis of the cost, the battery requirements, and the economic competitiveness of plug in vehicles today and within the near term future. Table 2 presents the net present value of life-cycle costs over ten years for a midsized combustion vehicle [CV], hybrid vehicle [HEV] and a plug in electric vehicle with a 20mil electric-only range [PHEV20]. The battery module cost in dollars per kilowatt is the cost at which the total life-cycle costs of all three vehicles would be the Figure presents cost for battery as a function of number of units produced per year. According to this a production of about units per year units would the cost reduction to make both hybrid electric vehicles and plug in electric vehicles 3 presents the electric and plug-in hybrid vehicle battery that would be to make electric vehicles cost for vehicles according to EPRI (13). As shown in Table the characteristics of batteries, and batteries are to meet the required cost and performance The battery characteristics shown in Table 1 and Fig. are years and it is likely that more from would show Furthermore, the EPRI study assumed a current gasoline cost of A of the analysis based on a gasoline cost of that the battery at which the net present values of conventional combustion vehicles and battery vehicles are would up from to for an HEV and from to for a PHEV Figure shows the cost for batteries production for Hence, it that the cost of HEVs and with available batteries is with that of engine The EPRI analysis is because it compared the performance of all battery electric and plug in hybrid vehicles only to currently available combustion as shown in the use of diesel in a hybrid would increase the efficiency of compared to a hybrid with engine and the amount of fuel Hence, it be concluded that the EPRI analysis is it includes advanced batteries, it does not the increased efficiency by using diesel of combustion Furthermore, diesel fuel, as will be shown in can be produced from coal or renewable sources as can the electric power required for charging the The introduction of to the energy is the of this it is and can be as renewable technologies become more cost and fossil fuels more natural gas and biomass can be into liquid the most fossil fuel in the is used almost to In order to make coal into a vehicle fuel, it first be to a gas by a of The of this then be to of that can be used as vehicle fuel. biomass and natural gas can be used of coal or combined with coal to make these and are discussed gas can be used as a vehicle fuel, or it can be with to make gas, which can be used to fuels in the same manner as for The technology is well developed as shown by the recent of of which will natural gas, which is currently to liquid fuel. These and a in of which is diesel in With a with an estimated billion and a diesel with the of with an estimated at The of natural gas to make vehicle fuels was discussed in an paper by the authors (18), and of those results are presented later for comparison with coal as the fuel It should also be noted that biomass can be either alone or in with coal and to liquid fuels by the same as coal, or it can also be and then into vehicle fuels as in is a that is a in the production of synthetic liquid fuels from coal for transportation The coal is shown in Fig. It a such as coal or with to and This gas can be to hydrogen or to make or can be used as a transportation fuel in but this study on diesel fuel because are more the first of the coal is with limited to and The in the coal is to hydrogen gas, and are as In the shift is with to and The and hydrogen are from the and to the or into The that is in this is from the in a for Thus, it can be from the and are the costs when liquid fuel is produced from The estimated time of for a is to years. The depends on the production capacity of the the cost of a with a capacity to barrels of liquid fuel per is estimated to be of the order billion of coal claim that there will be gas pollution from the However, in the future vehicle emissions of can be reduced those of vehicles, by the use of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and by of the from the fuel production is a synthetic diesel fuel that can be made from coal by of The is first to make which can then be to The is to the and the gas is to electricity for the as shown in Fig. is a gas at but can be under and then can be to other liquid of make it an fuel for It is similar to but has a number The number to the of a fuel to With combustion of the fuel occurs after and emissions are as a of combustion The combustion also in by the need for to the shown in Fig. coal into liquid fuel. The was by scientists before and is used today in by to make diesel fuel gas to make a liquid fuel of synthetic diesel fuel, which is similar to and which is used to make synthetic gasoline (7). The is from the liquid diesel and to the The gas resulting from is to electricity for the can be made from coal by by gas After the hydrogen gas and are from the gas, and hydrogen are The hydrogen can be stored and the can be for electricity and/or to the shift as shown in Fig. store and the hydrogen, it is either to it to or to it at a The efficiency of the first option is while the second is efficient (7). Both and hydrogen have been for fuel storage in a of hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles is in the of coal or natural gas into a vehicle fuel. The energy efficiency of these is important in the overall well to efficiency of these alternative Table 4 presents or efficiency for various fuels from coal or natural and have reported the and energy for with of the and values are used (18) presented for natural gas without and estimated that of CO2 the efficiency of by about two percentage Since natural gas only about as much per unit of energy as coal, it has been assumed that will reduce the efficiency of to fuels by percentage point. Thus, percentage has been from values reported by (18) to the values shown in Table In the of data for the of natural gas to the authors assumed that the ratio of the for natural gas is the same as that for coal to estimate this efficiency as shown in Table 4 that the production of liquid fuels from natural gas is more efficient than from But is in and the technology is not a It is however, for the that is currently into the in gasoline The of of these has been But production is the more for the term and does not require hydrogen as a fuel or energy Today, the of fuel from coal, at the only in The of supplies of such fuels as gasoline, and The economic and of coal have been U.S. and for a fuel in using technology and are to the that will have a capacity to of diesel fuel. has in recent NRC study other technologies that could synthetic fuels from biomass and presents a comparison of the energy on energy for production from and These significant in synthetic But the for synthetic fuel production need to be multiplied before synthetic fuels can make up for the between demand and of gasoline after the peak in oil production is on the analysis presented in this we the following and oil production is expected to peak within the and as is liquid fuel are expected to increase This could lead to a crisis in the U.S. transportation system that on 60% of which is options for a transportation crisis by and/or liquid fuels derived from petroleum with synthetic fuels from natural gas, or coal and by demand by increasing the efficiency and mileage of options to have impact they be at least before hybrid vehicles are a option to reduce the liquid fuel consumption of future transportation hybrid vehicles can the existing infrastructure for electric power transmission by charging batteries during peak hours and use liquid fuels only for a fraction of overall power hybrid vehicles can diesel that can be by synthetic fuels derived from coal, natural gas, or use efficiency is increased efficiency alone will not be to the transportation without the production of large of synthetic liquid number of technologies for synthetic diesel that can be used in diesel and reduce emission of that lead to scale of effort required to provide synthetic fuels will require years to and should therefore be as soon as hybrid or all-electric vehicles with available battery technology in an are compared to gasoline of the of the transportation it is that be by government such as for the of synthetic fuels and CO2 high liquid fuel mileage for automobiles, and for efficient plug-in hybrid scenario in this paper for a secure transportation system can be immediately with available technologies and without hydrogen or authors to for as of an independent study for the of at the of

Securing Platinum-Group Metals for Transport Low-Carbon Transition

Range cost-effectiveness of plug-in electric vehicle for heterogeneous consumers: An expanded total ownership cost approach

Author(s): Chakraborty, Debapriya; Bunch, David S.; Xu, Bingzheng; Brownstone, David; Tal, Gil | Abstract: The market for plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) that primarily include battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) has been rapidly growing in California for the past few years. Given the targets for PEV penetration in the state, it is important to have a better understanding of the pattern of technology diffusion and the factors that are driving the process. Using spatial analysis and Poisson count models, the researchers identify the importance of a neighborhood effect (at home locations) and workplace effect (at commute destinations) in supporting the diffusion of PEV technology in California. In the case of new BEV sales, they found that exposure to one additional BEV or PHEV within a 1-mile radius of a block group centroid is associated with a 0.2% increase in BEV sales in the block group. Interestingly, for new PHEV sales, the neighborhood effect of BEV sales is negative, suggesting that enhanced exposure to this type of technology (which is differentiated in distinctive ways from PHEVs) may impact new PHEV sales through a substitution effect. Specifically, higher BEV concentration in an area can have an overall negative effect on new PHEV sales. While the neighborhood effect at residential locations is important, the workplace effect also has a notably important effect on new PEV sales. Both effects work in combination with socioeconomic, demographic, policy, and built environment factors in encouraging PEV adoption. These results suggest that policymakers should consider targeted programs and investments that can boost the impact of neighborhood and peer effects on PEV salesView the NCST Project Webpage

Federal agencies are mandated to purchase alternative fuel vehicles, increase consumption of alternative fuels, and reduce petroleum consumption. Available plug-in electric vehicles (PEVs) provide an attractive option in the selection of alternative fuel vehicles. PEVs, which consist of both battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), have significant advantages over internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles in terms of energy efficiency, reduced petroleum consumption, and reduced production of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and they provide performance benefits with quieter, smoother operation. This study intended to evaluate the extent to which NASA Stennis Space Center (Stennis) could convert part or all of their fleet of vehicles from petroleum-fueled vehicles to PEVs.