30 Апр 2014 | Author: | Комментарии к записи Dp201203 отключены
MITSUBISHI i-MiEV – Electric Car Keiko 47kW Auto

Report content

Dp201203 Transcript

Electric Vehicles –Costs, Subsidies and Prospects 03 Paper 2012 • 03 Philippe International Transport Forum at the Paris

This document was as a Background Paper for the 2012 of theInternational Transport Forum, on Transport: Making Connections, from2-4 May 2012 in Leipzig, The views expressed in this do notnecessarily reflect those of the countries of the International Transport information about the International Forum is available atwww.internationaltransportforum.org

VEHICLES REVISITED:COSTS, SUBSIDIES AND Discussion Paper No. 2012-O3 CRIST International Transport Paris France April

INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT FORUMThe Transport Forum at the OECD is an organisationwith 53 member countries. It as a strategic think tank the objective of helpingshape the transport agenda on a global level and that it contributes toeconomic environmental protection, social and the preservation ofhuman life and The International Transport Forum an annualsummit of Ministers along leading representatives from civil society andacademia.The Transport Forum was created a Declaration issued by the Councilof of the ECMT (European Conference of of Transport) at its MinisterialSession in May 2006 the legal authority of the Protocol of the signed inBrussels on 17 October and legal instruments of the OECD.The of the Forum are: Albania, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, the Czech Republic,Denmark, Finland, France, FYROM, Germany, Greece, Hungary,Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Montenegro, New Zealand, Norway, Poland,Portugal, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United International Transport Forum’s Centre gathers statistics and co-operative research programmes all modes of transport. Its findings are and support policymaking in member as well as contributing tothe Summit. DISCUSSION PAPERSThe Transport Forum’s Discussion Series makes economic or carried out at its Research Centre, to researchers andpractitioners.

The aim is to contribute to the of the transport sector and toprovide to transport policy design. The Papers are not edited by theInternational Forum and they reflect the opinions alone.The Discussion can be downloaded from:www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/DiscussionPapers/jtrcpapers.htmlThe International Forum’s website is at: www.internationaltransportforum.orgor for information on the Discussion Papers, email: itf.contact@oecd.org


62. METHODOLOGY. 9 Ownership costs. 12 2.2. use. 14 2.3. Electricity 14 2.4. Vehicle life. 17 Annual vehicle use. 18 Fuel costs. 18 2.7. taxes. 18 2.8. Electricity 19 2.9. Electricity taxes. 19 Cost of charging infrastructure. 19 Well-to-tank and tank-to-wheel CO2 emissions for cars. 20 2.12. Carbon of electricity. 20 2.13. Production and CO2 emissions for BEVs and ICEs. 22 CO2 price. 23 2.15. Local costs. 24 3. Results. 25BIBLIOGRAPHY. Box 1: Impacts of BEVs on Public Evidence from Input-Output in France.

13 Box 2: Range Perception, Requirements and Costs for Battery Vehicles. 17 Box 3: Seasonal Variability of Carbon Content. 22Philippe — Discussion Paper 2012-03 — © 2012 3

ELECTRIC VEHICLES – COSTS, SUBSIDIES AND PROSPECTS VEHICLES REVISITED – COSTS, AND PROSPECTS AN ILLUSTRATION WITH MARKETED IN FRANCE SUMMARY paper compares the lifetime of like internal combustion and vehicle pairs on the market in and finds that relative of electricvehicles remain elevated for and even more so for society currentconditions and typical use scenarios. It suggests that in those where electricvehicles do already favourably to internal combustion powered cars,subsidies may be superfluous. In the a number of simultaneous changes electric vehicles (BEV) and ICE fiscal regimes and prevailing might reduce and even the consumer cost differential in of ICEs.Reducing the social cost between BEVs and ICEs more challengingunder most and, when successful, the question of how much shouldsociety to subsidise BEVs in instances there begins to be a business forthem.

Electric cars are presented as zero-emission vehicles and are to manylong-term decarbonisation scenarios for the sector but battery electric considerable cost and environmental before they can realise potential.This study looks at a set of battery electric and internal enginecars for which commercial data is available, in order to cost differencesfrom first-order and societal perspectives. We find the cost of these BEVs(excluding the is still higher than internal combustion vehicles,though it is that this gap may narrow as volumes increase.Batteries still a challenge as the costs for batteries a “useable” range(approximately 150 kms per charge) are high. These costs may in years tocome as the scale of increases but ICEs will provide superior range costs under many This study does not for indirect impacts ofBEC (e.g. reduced oil dependence, productivity benefits andemployment

These may be important but may also from improved ICEefficiency at a cost. It is also important to that electric cars are emission” rather thanzero vehicles since electricity may generate both CO 2 andconventional In almost all cases, BECs generate fewer lifecycle CO than comparable ICE counterparts. how much less depends on intensity of marginal electricity used to charge electric thefull lifecycle emissions production) of comparable electric and vehicles (and their and the relative energy efficiencies of vehicles.In most scenarios here, the marginal CO2 abatement of replacing fossil fuelpowered with electric vehicles elevated – the exception being for vehicletravel scenarios.Philippe Crist — Paper 2012-03 — © OECD/ITF 5

ELECTRIC VEHICLES REVISITED: SUBSIDIES AND PROSPECTS 1. BACKGROUND vehicles have gathered interest in recent years as aboutthe future availability and of fossil fuels, increasing gas (GHG)emissions and air pollution1 have governments and manufacturers to consideralternative energy pathways. Recent put the global electric vehiclefleet at 120 million in 2010 with in 2011 topping 27 million. aresurprisingly high numbers but the majority of these vehicles are and scooters and most of these are in China. Electric car sales, in multiple orders of magnitude with the most popular representing thelion’s share of the electric car market (Nissan and Mitsubishi iMiev) tallyingglobal at approximately 44 000 units.

These are likely to pick up as morecar become commercially available but questions remain regardingconsumers’ uptake of battery electric As with discussions of other innovations that purport to the dualchallenge of energy security and change (e.g. biofuels and fuel cells),the return of the car can be characterised by what can be colloquially a“hype cycle”(Fenn Time, (see Figure 1). Figure 1: “Hype Cycle” for technology Peak of inflated expectations of productivity Visibility Slope of Trough of disillusionment Maturity (Bakker, 2009) adapted Gartner.1 We do not address air pollution of EVs here but we note that electricity generation is relatively evidence suggests that the air health impacts of BEVs are than gasoline ICEs and than diesel ICEs.

An in BEV uptake would also to a shift in exposure to air pollution from urban areas and rural populations in the downstream of power plants (Ji, et al. Philippe Crist — Discussion 2012-03 — © OECD/ITF 2012

VEHICLES REVISITED – COSTS, AND PROSPECTS That a new technology interest and excitement is a good as theseare often grounded on real and desirable attributes but the “hype” can go too far.New technologies are greeted by over-enthusiasm, boundless and inflatedexpectations. If these technologies to meet expectations, they falling into a“trough of where consumers and others the press), quickly moveon. The of a technology to meet over-inflated does not mean that devoid of potential and some (and governments) will to developand support these in the hope that a good or societal case willeventually Sometimes it does and subsequent of the technology, if itsurvives, may find a market niche or even a towards dominance given conditions.

The battery electric (BEV)2 is somewhere on such a curve” but it isdifficult to say where If one considers the visibility of BEVs in the and ingovernment discourse, it seems despite the perennial re-apparition of weappear to be (once again) the top of the initial slope of a new “hype is high, expectations are far-ranging and analysis of where BEVs in the future mobility landscape is BEVs are not a new technology per se even the current generation of BEVscertainly a significant improvement over ones. It is a technology thathas through several previous cycles” (e.g. most in the mid-1990’swith 3 commercially available from Peugeot, Citroen and and in theUnited States with Motors EV-1).

In each the BEV has fallen into a “troughof and away from public and interest. Work on BEVs continued intermittently as battery and technology have improvedand by manufacturers are again offering advanced market-readycommercial models. manufacturers that have BEVs to market again that the technology has matured and their offer incorporates the from previous cycles. the state of technical advancement of generations of BEVs, mostmanufacturers underscore the need for government for wide-spreaduptake. In response, and in line strategic decarbonisation goals, haveprovided upstream assistance for and development and direct and sometimessubstantial subsidies in many jurisdictions.

One for doing so is thebelief that the to a low-carbon transport sector is but that an early (andassisted) to electro-mobility will reduce the burden on society that result from a late The “early-shift” storyline stresses not only is government intervention in (on a sometimes large scale) but society ultimately benefits due to of the oil import bill (with productivity impacts throughout and an increase in domestic manufacturing and 3. An alternate storylinemay highlight the upfront opportunity costs of energy dependency andgreenhouse gas via BEVs as opposed to advanced combustion engine2 For the purposes of paper, we define a battery vehicle as a light-duty car, van or utility vehicle propelled by a battery-powered electric motor not hybrid vehicles)3 See (Cassen, et al. for an exploration of this storyline.Philippe — Discussion Paper 2012-03 — © 2012 7

ELECTRIC VEHICLES COSTS, SUBSIDIES AND PROSPECTSvehicles and Such a storyline may also the potential for domesticmanufacturing to suffer to lower cost foreign and BEV manufacturers. Government intervention in and volatile markets is fraught potentialdownsides.

The recent experience of countries with guaranteed tariffs forlarge-scale solar highlights the risk of intervention can have unexpectedoutcomes and significantly the long-term functioning of the very it seeksto help5. In a number of the cost of support for solar grew more rapidlythan due to the combined effect of dropping panel costs and thestrength of the (feed-in tariffs) provided. and the economic crisis promptedgovernments to back support which investor’s plans and contributed closure of several photovoltaic manufacturing plants already pressure frominexpensive imports.

The also exists for the BEV market and someof the dynamics at play help policymakers gauge the and, eventually, the scopefor Our analysis does not test the of either storyline outlined Rather thanreviewing the progress and positioning of BEVs in the current andregulatory landscape, we approach the above by drawing lessons a micro-analysis of commercially available BEV in France and by looking at what can from estimating their consumer and first-order societal This paper builds on by Professor Rémy Prud’homme in Vehicles:A Tentative Economic and Evaluation” presented for the InternationalTransport – Korea Transport Institute seminar “Green Growth in 2010). That analysis that current electric car are not onlymore expensive for consumers a comparable internal combustion (ICE) but that they very much more for society under a widerange of

It also highlighted that electric cars may have the reduce CO2 emissions compared to this came at a relatively cost per tonneof CO2 reduced. The in (Prudhomme, 2010) was based on and incomplete reportsrelating to the commercial of electric car models in France. In paper, we usePrud’homme’s framework and it with up-to-date information tomarket prices and vehicle characteristics for three electric offeredfor sale in France by

We select these models each has an almostidentical (from the of vehicle body, chassis and level) ICEcounterpart facilitating comparisons. All of the data used in the isbased on publicly available from Renault or from public industry,government or academic Because of the small set of vehicle and the fact that they only onemanufacturer, we caution the that the results of our analysis be taken asan indicative of the relative costs of BEVs vs. at this point in time atthe first stages of is hoped to mass commercialisation).

while thecommercial model by Renault (battery leasing vs. is not necessarily4 See (Michalek, et al. 2011) for an of this storyline.5 See, for (Frondel, et al. 2009) and (Voosen for a discussion of the outcome of intervention in PV markets in Germany and Spain8 Crist — Discussion Paper — © OECD/ITF 2012

ELECTRIC REVISITED – COSTS, SUBSIDIES AND by other BEV manufacturers, we find no evidence that would our findings would not a priori to other BEV business models. 2. We compare battery electric with internal combustion vehiclesdisplaying similar characteristics so as to an indication of how a typical BEVmight to its ICE equivalent. Since the total BEV for the selected models istypically than the ICE equivalent, we express difference as the additional costof the BEV the ICE—i.e. where the BEV is less than the ICE, the difference as a negative. Renault has announced prices and marketing plans in for several BEVmodels.

The tables compare the technical characteristics and salesprices for each BEV with its ICE Where data was not provided by we include our estimates that are under each relevant ofthis paper. Renault’s BEV will be sold in France a monthly battery lease Thiscontrasts with many commercially available BEVs are priced inclusive of thebattery. is a significant difference since costs are still quite

TheInternational Energy Agency estimated (IEA, 2011) near-term (before2020) high-volume costs for lithium-ion automotive packs for electricvehicles could be as low as At this cost, the upfront for the batterypacks for these models be approximately US$11000 (€7700). batterylease options range in price for shorter car lease and greater yearlytravel distances. We matched battery lease to the yearly travel distancesselected for vehicle assuming a 36 month Crist — Discussion Paper — © OECD/ITF 2012 9

ELECTRIC REVISITED: COSTS, SUBSIDIES AND Table 1. Vehicle Characteristics: sedan Diesel Battery Fluence Expression dCi 90 Fluence Length 4618 4748 mm 1809 mm 1813 mm Max. power 66 kW 70 kW Max. Torque 220 Nm 226 Nm Top 180 km/hr 135 km/hr Seats 5 5 4 4 Weight 1280 kg 1543 kg volume 530 l 317 l Transmission Manual Range (NEDC) 1364 km Fuel Tank 60 l Battery 22 kWh Fuel consumption 4.5 l/100km Electricity consumption 13 kWh/100km km/kWh)* TTW CO2 emissions (WTW) 115 g (142 g CO2/km) variable on electricity source Sales no subsidy €20 300 €26 300 (+19.6% sales Battery Rental €82/month (36 up to 15000 km/yr) Table 2. Characteristics: 5-door compact Battery Electric Selected Clio Authentique 5P dCi 75 eco2 Zoe

Length 4027 mm 4086 mm 1720 mm 1540 mm Max. power 55 kW 60 kW Max. Torque n/c 222 Nm Top 165 km/hr 135 km/hr Seats 5 5 5 5 Weight 1175 kg 1392 kg volume 288 l n/c Transmission Manual n/c (NEDC) 1375 km 200 km* Fuel 55 l Battery 22kWh Fuel 4 l/100 km (25km/l) Electricity n/c (estimate:11 kWh/100km or 9 km/kWh)* TTW CO2 (WTW) 106 g /km (126 gCO2/km) depending on electricity source price, no subsidy €16 000 €20 700 (+19.6% tax) Battery Rental (36 months, up to 15 000km/yr)10 Philippe — Discussion Paper 2012-03 — © 2012

ELECTRIC VEHICLES – COSTS, SUBSIDIES AND PROSPECTS 3. Vehicle Characteristics: 2-seat commercial vehicle Diesel Electric Kangoo Gd Volume — Kangoo Maxi dCi 85 Length 4597 mm 4597 mm 2133 mm 2133 mm Max. power 63 kW 44 kW Max. Torque 200 kW 226 Nm Top 158 km/hr 130 km/hr Seats 2 2 capacity (weight) 800 kg 650 kg 3 3 Carrying (volume) 4.6 m 4.0-4.6 m Transmission Automatic Range (NEDC) km 170 km Fuel Tank 60 l Battery 22 kWh Fuel consumption 5.3 l/100 km km/l) Electricity consumption kWh/100km (6.1 km/kWh)* TTW CO2 (WTW) 140 g/km (167 variable depending on electricity Sales price, no subsidy €16 400 €21 200 sales tax) €89/month (36 from 20 000 to 25 Battery Rental 000 Range and electricity consumption are for NEDC test cycle, range may deviate according style and auxiliary electricity Assuming typical usage for each model type, we the extra cost of theBEV to the ICE from both consumer and perspectives. For consumers,we also an estimate of the added cost of a BEV the first three years arguably in line with calculations when purchasing a new future costs are expressed as net current value using a discount rate of4%. costs represent the total of ownership including purchase costs6, taxes and subsidies and CO2 and local pollution costs.

We societal costs to cover and operation costs exclusive of from this point of are simply a transfer), and include the CO 2 andlocal pollution costs. For we do not include costs for public infrastructurewhich may be substantial as discussed on. Our definition of societal costs in that it only looks at the societal costs deriving a decision topurchase and operate a BEV of an ICE.

This provides an picture of thetotal cost or to society resulting from the BEV decision. A full accountingof costs and benefits would energy security impacts. As earlier, oneputative impact BEV uptake is the reduction of fossil import bills and theknock-on this may have on productivity and to oil price volatility.

We donot this impact here7 we note there is uncertainty on the amplitude6 Excluding insurance this should normally the same for BEVs and ICEs in practice, some insurers in offer promotional differentiated – discussed further on).7 See et al. 2009) for a more complete Crist — Discussion Paper — © OECD/ITF 2012 11

ELECTRIC REVISITED: COSTS, SUBSIDIES AND the sign of the impact if renewable remains more expensive and becomes scarcer in response to concerns. High rates of BEV also impact government streams and this mayhave an on societal cost of BEVs as some revenue streams more tocollect than (see Box 1). Our baseline calculations do not a cost to CO2 emissions as there is agreed cost for these in or Europe (outside of the European which, in the present case, covers emissions from production inEurope and not emissions ICEs).

However, we do determine the impacton lifetime CO2 emissions upstream emissions associated electricitygeneration and fossil fuel and processing. These can then be to test thesensitivity of our findings to CO2 price scenarios. We also use to derive anindicative societal and government cost per tonne of CO 2 by the BEV.2.1. Ownership costs We use the ex-subsidy prices for all vehicles (as of 2012).Advertised prices do not represent costs but we assume that are closeenough to serve as a reasonable given the competitive nature of the industry.However, it may very well be manufacturers choose to endure on a newtechnology in order to gain a competitive foothold in the market.

We do that may be the case here would mean that our figures mayunderestimate current BEV BEV prices include a 19.6% tax (VAT) which isalso on the equivalent ICE models. As such, our would overestimate BEVownership where jurisdictions exempt from VAT. We further that Renault’s business completely separates battery vehicle costs.

In other the BEV price includes no cross-subsidy aportion of the battery cost. is a contestable assumption given the costs forbatteries, but we have no that this is the not case for the in ouranalysis. We note that if the lease represents the full value of the batterypack, then the vehicles examined here slightly higher battery than theIEA near-term (US$500 kWh) cited

The net present value of 15 years lease payments is €10 940 and €10 540, for the sedan and compactmodels. These have 22kWh batteries and the per kilowatt hour battery the BEV sedan and compact models are €480-€495/kWh (US$ 630-650/kWh).12 Crist — Discussion Paper — © OECD/ITF 2012

ELECTRIC REVISITED – COSTS, SUBSIDIES AND Box 1: Impacts of BEVs on public evidence from input-output in FranceHigh rates of BEV uptake are to have an impact on government streams. (Leurent Windisch,2012) an economy-wide input-output analysis for the case (high fuel and taxes) fora simplified car BEV model. Their model for government revenue from social securitytaxes and other paid on intermediate outputs and to upstream vehicle and fuel-related ofthe economy.Table 4 summarises results. They find government revenue impacts are — governmentrevenue over the of the vehicle are 2.5 times and 1.5 times, the purchase price of an ICEand BEV excluding purchase subsidies. revenue stream is dominated, in the case, by socialsecurity taxes for 71% and 79% of total government revenue for the ICE and respectively).

Onbalance, they that BEVs and ICEs roughly equivalent amounts of revenue over theirlifetime a slight advantage for the BEV, the €5 000 purchase subsidy offered in Accountingfor the purchase subsidy erodes the government revenue of the BEV (-16%).They also find differences in the government revenue amongst BEVs and ICEs. taxesaccount for 9% of lifetime government from an ICE while electricity only account for 1% of revenuefor a This is compensated by a higher of social security tax revenue for the BEV 73% versus 65%for the ICE.

as fuel taxes are among the expensive to collect, a shift from these to moreexpensive will impose greater on society, holding government constant. Table 4: Lifetime and Social Revenues for a “B” Class ICE and BEV (€ per vehicle) ICE BEV Manufacture Use Manufacture Use expenditure 14600 17650 10814 Government revenue VAT 4121 4782 2119 Tax 3375 420 Production-related taxes 1031 1648 618 Social taxes 10594 12837 7798 Total Revenue (no 14457 21364 24936 (comb ined) 35821 Total Revenue (ex subsidy) 21364 18956 10956 ined) 35821 29912 French tax rates, fuel and prices, ICE fuel consumption BEV electricity consumption 18 kWh/100km, 15 000 both vehicles (for assumptions, see source) Source: Windisch, 2012)From a political perspective, it is interesting to note the slight government revenue in the ex-subsidy scenario disappears if a share of vehicle, battery or productionshifts outside of France. helps explain the strong to develop domestic BEV production as away of gaining early position in what are hoped to be domestic and export markets.

battery lease is bundled a series of other services includeguaranteed battery exchange the battery lose 25% of its original with setting up a home point, programmed maintenance, rates for ICEs (for distance trips), on-call and towing andcustomised on-board connection and GPS-based services. these serviceshas a cost and so it is that our estimate of battery-only overestimates BEVversus ICE ownership in the case that such are not provided to ICEowners.Philippe Crist — Paper 2012-03 — © OECD/ITF 13

ELECTRIC VEHICLES REVISITED: SUBSIDIES AND PROSPECTS We assume the yearly maintenance costs for will be less than ICEcounterparts given the simplicity of the motor and its small number of relative to a combustion engine. some insurers in France offereddifferentiated promotional insurance in favour of BEVs. It is not clear there isan economic for insurance rate differentiation and so we do not adifference in insurance costs BEV and ICE models.

France has a feebate in place (“bonus-malus”) that low CO2 emittingcars and punishes higher-emitting None of the ICE cars examined qualify for areward payment the system’s 2012 rates and the BEV payment of €5 000covers the feebate for the BEVs.2.2. Fuel use We use fuel data 8 provided by Renault for the ICE in thisanalysis.

These are expressed in of litres of (diesel) fuel per 100kilometres according to the combined (New European Drive test cycle. Inreality, it is that the ICE vehicles under especially if they are tobe by their BEV counterpart, will be in essentially urban conditions. fuel consumption is higher to repeated accelerations and partial using the combined NEDC consumption figures will underestimate on-road ICE fuel (and thus decrease the differential with BEVs). test results do not represent driving conditions and there is a gap fuel use and test cycle (with test cycles “real” fuel use byapproximately and more in the case of hybrids) et al, 2011),(Zachariadis, 2006). Thus, if BEVs may display a gap in terms of versus“test” electricity use per kilometre below), because the unit of fuel arehigher, we believe accounting for “real” driving would further reduce differential between BEVs and ICE counterparts.

On the other hand, of stop-and-start technology on ICE vehicles, can significantly reduce ICEfuel in urban traffic, will the cost differential by disproportionatelyreducing ICE costs.2.3. Electricity use We use NEDC energy consumption (kWh/100km) and its energyefficiency (km/kWh) for the BEVs in as communicated by Renault or, in the caseof the calculated by dividing the claimed battery range of 200km by capacity of 22 kWh10. We do not account for losses during charging(estimated to be 10% to 15%) in calculating electricity use as we no specificinformation on charging losses for the considered here and, in any given8 In our actual calculations, we fuel consumption data to efficiency data (e.g. per unit of fuel or energy) to reflect the work accomplished by each economic input of fuel or kWh).9 Renault had not at the of this paper’s release homulgated energy consumption for the ZOE.10 An imperfect measure of consumption that doesn’t for the BEVs’ regenerative braking, electricity consumption and

10-15% during recharging.14 Philippe — Discussion Paper 2012-03 — © 2012

ELECTRIC VEHICLES – COSTS, SUBSIDIES AND PROSPECTSthe low cost of electricity, the added is likely to be marginal. Otherestimates of BEV consumption indicate somewhat figures in the 20-25kWh/100 km range for similarly-sized vehicles – discussed It may be thatsuch estimates reflect on-road rates of electricity for the currentgeneration of battery electric As with ICEs, on-road BEV consumption can vary, sometimes test cycle figures11.

the “Tank to Wheel” efficiency of is sensitive todriving style and profiles, this is much the case with BEVs “Battery toWheel” efficiency is constant. BEV’s, however, are more susceptible topower from auxiliary devices as heating and cooling systems and powered devices (entertainment on-board computers and smallelectric such as those used for wipers and power windows) arenot included in test-cycle Figure 2 shows different estimates of electricity consumption, equipment in terms of kWh per 100 kilometres for an compact car (e.g.Volkswagen Golf) on various published reports and (Helms et al. 2010).These estimates are on second-by-second speed profiles according toaverage German levels in urban and extra-urban as well as on motorways.The propulsion-only consumption figures are higher the NEDC cycle figuresgiven for the examined in this paper.

are two plausible reasons for this. is that the results in Helms et al. are on a composite vehicle model simplifies (and possibly BEV electricity consumption. TheRenault on the other hand, are purpose-built and can be considered tohave been for low electricity consumption.

The second is the drivingprofiles used in Helms, et al, are reflective of “on-road” driving and arethus not equivalent to NEDC figures12,13. Electricity consumption of devices is a function of time, not of andthus driving profiles in traffic (e.g. urban and versus motorwayspeeds) display rates of electricity use by these (Helms et al. 2010) findthat runs in average German conditions generally consume than the modelled NEDC – the “real-world”-test-cycle energyconsumption gap seems to for BEVs as well. This with other reviews of BEV performance14.11 It is important to note electric motors are much efficient than combustion (upwards of 90% of the input energy is into useful work for motors compared to about 40% for the diesel car engines) (Delorme, Sharer, Rousseau, 2009). The efficiency of the electric motor, system and drivetrain for the BEV is less that of the motor alone at 70%.12 The NEDC result by Helms et al. is higher than the energy consumption figures for two of the three Renault models – but might be explained by a sub- BEV configuration used by Helms, et al as above.13 Though the relative of auxiliaries draw in real-life consumption is supported by many – see for example (Beeker, et al.

2011) for a discussion.14 See, for instance, et al. 2011).Philippe Crist — Discussion 2012-03 — © OECD/ITF 2012 15

VEHICLES REVISITED: COSTS, AND PROSPECTS Figure 2: Modelled BEV Consumption for a Compact Car in Germany km) Figure 1: kWh/100km Compact car Consumers 26.9 0.8 Propulsion 0.9 23.3 20.4 20.8 1.3 2.9 7.9 3.1 26.1 24.0 19.5 15.2 15.4 Average for Germany Source: (Helms, Lambrecht, Liebach, 2010). this gap exists is not disputed by and some expressly cautionfuture about the impacts of different on electricity consumption and range(though BEV ranges seem largely for most, but not all trips – see Box2). these, speed, acceleration, and cooling are all significant and canpotentially the test-cycle range of vehicles as by Nissan (Table 5).

Table 5: of impact of auxiliary power and driving conditions on BEV range Leaf, New battery) Use Scenario External Heating/cooling Range temperature on? EPA LA4 test cycle 31 20°C to 30°C off 161 km “Ideal” (flat 61 km/hr 20 off 222 km terrain, speed) Suburban driving, 39 22 off 169 km temperate climate Highway summer 89 km/hr 35 on 113 km Cross-town hot 79 km/hr 43 on 109 km day Urban congested 24 km/hr -10 on 100 km go traffic, winterSource: — http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index#/leaf-electric-car/range-disclaimer/index16 Philippe — Discussion Paper 2012-03 — © 2012

ELECTRIC VEHICLES – COSTS, SUBSIDIES AND PROSPECTS Box 2: Perception, Performance, Requirements and for Battery Electric VehiclesDriving is not a direct component in our calculation of BEV ICE costs. “Range Anxiety”, been consistently cited as a to BEV uptake even though BEV ranges are generally greaterthan people’s daily car travel (Depoorter Assimon, 2011). 1-3 show that for the vehicles we ICEs significantly outperform in terms of range. However, BEV scale upwards with that BEVs offering ranges will necessarily higher battery costs.The of batteries providing ICE-like has traditionally been cited as one of the barriers to thewidespread uptake of Manufacturers historically have hesitant to produce BEVs perform lesswell (in terms of and performance) than like ICE stating that consumers not accept lowerdriving ranges … at not in sufficient numbers to justify the costs for the development anddeployment of models.

Recently however, manufacturers have decided to battery electricvehicles to market in under the expectation that at some significant market will bereceptive to these despite (or perhaps, because of) characteristics.(Axsen, Kurani, Burke, suggest that official objectives for BEV design range may be what consumers expect or in order to purchase electric — and that the “battery mayindeed be largely virtual. find that current vehicle battery design are overly ambitious whencompared to the consumers themselves spontaneously in experiments. Though developmentof technology will of course BEV costs or increase range, and manufacturers maybe underestimating willingness to buy these vehicles before battery technology are met.Many studies point out most urban travel is within the capacity of current BEV

However, in 2011most consumers no actual experience with the range of BEVs which may be variableaccording to total electricity use travel (not just the used for propulsion). Consumers are not about the “official” driving of BEVs but perhaps even so about the “on-road” driving may be well below official estimates – especially in urban where travel takes or whenon-board accessories such as or heating systems are in use. that official driving estimatesmatch those experienced by in the early stages of BEV commercialization go a long way towardsgetting consumers to less than ICE-like in terms of vehicle range and Given that our estimates of consumption for Renault’s vehicles are test cycle conditions, we reasonably assume that underestimate thereal-world energy use of the in our analysis (and thus slightly underestimateBEV ownership due to the relatively low cost of electricity to fossil fuel).2.4.

Vehicle We estimate that both the ICE and BEV be operated for 15 years. We make nor account for, the residual of the vehicle in the second-hand marketthough it has suggested that this be higher for BEVs since motors arelikely to wear than internal combustion High residual values be the case for BEVs sold battery swap arrangements frequentbattery renewal would that these vehicles have consistently high packs.15 Though our assumptions ICE range based on fuel capacity and NEDC mixed fuel consumption likely the real range of the ICEs given the gap between test and “on road” fuel consumption.Philippe — Discussion Paper 2012-03 — © 2012 17

ELECTRIC VEHICLES COSTS, SUBSIDIES AND PROSPECTS2.5. vehicle use Daily and annual use is a critical component in our cost since themore a BEV travels, the are the cumulative avoided fossil costs. We assumedifferent baseline use for this analysis. Our baseline travel assumption forthe sedan and the 5-door compact are 35 and 30 kilometres a day (365days per year) (

13 000 km/yr and

11 000 km/yr, respectively). isroughly in line with annual vehicle travel for France (

13 000 km/yr).We assume the compact will be driven less since most will be inurban settings. Our daily travel assumption for the commercial van ishigher – 90 km/day non-weekend days only or 260 a year) or23 400 km/yr – in with statistics on van use in France 2008). For allvehicles, we assume a 1% in annual travel per year.2.6. costs Our baseline assumption for costs is based on an oil price of $90 Is this areasonable assumption?

Brent oil prices had traded above $120 Bblat the of publishing this paper 2012) and had not dipped below $90 Bbl 2010. Oil price variability has a steady feature of international in recent years and there is no that this is likely to much in thefuture, especially as the and sometimes erratic nature of the crisisrecovery continues. Nonetheless, variability, it is generally assumed oilprices will increase the next 15 years (IEA, For the purposes of ourcalculation, we assume prices will increase 6% per — consistent with in (Prudhomme, 2010). This that oil prices will $203/Bbl at theend of the life of the examined in this paper.

We assume a constant Dollar/Europarity the lifetime of the car for convenience – this has not the case in the pastand may not be the case in the A weakening of the Dollar vis-à-vis the decrease lifetime fuel in France and would therefore the costdifferential between the BEV and ICE, the would be true in case of of the dollar versus the Euro. In with (Prudhomme, 2010), estimates from the Union del’Industrie Pétrolière, we assume a cost of €0.193 per litre over the lifetime of the vehicle) refining and distribution costs.2.7.

taxes As of January 2011, the (taxe intérieure de consommation sur les is the principal excise tax on liquid fuels in France. It is calculatedper not on the non-tax price of fuel. For fuel the TICPE is currently set In addition, Regional governments in can assess an additional taxon fossil fuels up to €0.025/litre, and do though some of the most (Ile de France, Provence-Alpes-Cote Rhone-Alpes) have levied a (€0.0115/litre).

For our calculations, we take the rate. Thus our base forthe TICPE and the Regional is €0.4399 (for diesel France also levies a tax on the post-TICPE (including the Regional of fuel. This rate is set at 19.6%.18 Philippe Crist — Paper 2012-03 — © OECD/ITF

ELECTRIC VEHICLES REVISITED – SUBSIDIES AND PROSPECTS It is important to that the under current structures, the replacement of anICE by a BEV a loss of fuel tax revenue to the (see Box 1). High rates of in vehicle fleets, all else equal, will entail of government revenuethat are not only in terms of their size, but because replacement revenuestreams likely entail higher costs (Van Dender 2010).2.8. Electricity costs produces relatively low-cost due to a long standing energy infavour of nuclear power

Households have several of electricitycontracts from a small set of dominated by Electricité de France All ofthese providers offer rate contracts and it is thought many households willtake of lower off-peak rates, at night, to slow-charge electricvehicles. early results from BEV trials support the hypothesis of charging, it is not certain that will remain the norm as are purchased bygreater numbers of

One reason might be that progress in fast-charging systems allow BEV owners to more-or-less refuelling patterns ofICEs around 3-5 minutes at all times of The second reason is that BEV compare peak electricity not to off-peak prices but rather to fuel prices.If this the case, consumers might insensitive to peak/off-peak electricityprice as long as these remain below equivalent fossil prices. Given uncertainty on how will recharge their and the applicableelectricity rates, we take an ex-tax price for electricity by households inFrance in Q1 2011 by the current distribution of rates as in (IEA,2011).

The ex-tax electricity we use in our calculations is €0.088 per kWh. assume that this increases 1% per year due to an expected in therenewable share of electricity Electricity taxes There are a of taxes levied upon use in France including VAT.These are on each kWh consumed or on different of electricity consumptiondepending on the tax. We do not to create an “average” household use(including BEV charging) profile in to calculate the relevant tax rates. weuse the Q1 2011 weighted excise and VAT tax calculated in (IEA, —€0.0349/kWh.

We assume that tax remains constant for the lifetime of the Cost of charging infrastructure can be charged directly from household electricity circuits in and itis assumed that will be the principal recharging (93% of charging points) BEV owners through 2020 we discuss in the previous section how mightnot be the case if fast-recharging becomes widespread). Renault BEV owners install a home point (e.g.

EVlink box from SchneiderElectronics at a cost of €800) and that they themselves with adedicated cable (EVSE — Vehicle Supply Equipment — €400available from We include these in our calculations in certain instancesthe home point may be subsidised.Philippe Crist — Paper 2012-03 — © OECD/ITF 19

ELECTRIC VEHICLES REVISITED: SUBSIDIES AND PROSPECTS According to Assimon, 2011), these charging points are assumedto for the majority of charging locations. The 7% of charging pointsare projected to be fast-charging (23 kVA) and ultra (43 kVA) charging pointswith costs ranging from €7 000 to €55 000 per point. The costs for thesepoints be shared amongst a number of including local authorities, parking garage owners and workplaces. On average, (Depoorter 2011) estimate the total for charging facilities to be on the order of €3 BEV in 2010 declining to €2 000 per BEV in 2020. uncertainties on the final cost amongst the different actors whether or not value-added services to recharging may recoup some of we assign no cost to non-domestic BEV facilities in our analysis.

Thislikely the societal cost of the BEV and thus the gapbetween BEV and ICE societal costs.2.11. and tank-to-wheel CO2 emissions for fuel ICE vehicles emit CO2 during use as to BEVs (see section However,just as BEVs, fossil-fuel ICEs also have (or, more precisely“power-plant to upstream emissions that be accounted for in a like-to-like lifecycle of BEVs and ICEs.

The ICE models here are all dieselvehicles – Concawe, and JRC-IES (Edwards et al, 2008) that theextraction, production and of diesel fuel for use in Europe 14.2g CO2/MJ. Diesel contains approximately 34 MJ/litre and so upstream “well-to-tank” CO2 emissions are 482 g CO2/litre.Diesel ICE tank-to-wheel CO2 emissions are 2600 g CO2 per litre. Thesefigures are in the “well-to-tank” emission estimates for the 3 in Tables 1-3.2.12. Carbon of electricity From a lifecycle CO2 and perspective, BEVs are not zero-emission rather “displaced-emission” vehicles in most instances electricity both greenhouse gas and pollutant

In France, the carbon content electricity production is relatively low due to the share of nuclear power A key factor to consider, however, looking at the CO 2 impacts of upstreamelectricity for BEVs is the carbon intensity of electricity generation,not necessarily the or the base load generation Depending on thenumber of BEVs in the the time of day, season of the and the geographiclocation, sufficient base electric generation capacity may or may not be tohandle additional BEV-related In these cases, marginal will be broughton line to excess demand and this can a significant impact on overall CO

ADEME notes that in France, the difference between load carbonintensity and marginal can be quite high – around 80g per kWh for the more than 600g kWh for the – due mainly to reliance on oil and coal formarginal electricity generation(ADEME, For electric vehicles to truly lower well-to-wheel emissions, powergeneration will have to be carbon intensive – especially coal and oil are used20 Philippe — Discussion Paper 2012-03 — © 2012

ELECTRIC VEHICLES – COSTS, SUBSIDIES AND PROSPECTSto electricity. Put more starkly, in where electricity generation is (absent carbon capture and and BEVs less efficient those examinedhere (see for Chinese manufacturer BYD’s of 20.75 kWh/60 miles(approximately 100 km) – driving cycle test – for its E6 BEVs maydeliver no CO2 savings conventional ICEs and in some may even emit moreCO2 on a basis (Ji, Cherry, Wu, Marshall, 2012) (Horst et (Hacker et al, 2009) (Early, An, Green-Weiskel, 2011). Even in base-load electricity generation is low-carbon, high rates of and PHEV charging will from marginal electricity which may verywell be much carbon intensive than the load mix (e.g. from gas or ratherthan from nuclear). The of recharging will have a not impact onoverall GHG emissions for BEV plug-in hybrid) use. the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, CO 2 emissions from electricitygeneration are

This means that no scenario (e.g. high electricity,low efficiency EVs) uptake of BEVs lead to an in CO 2 emissions in the Frenchcase (except from non-EU battery and manufacturing – see below).However, should BEV use of electricity significantly increase, could bea knock-on effect on prices which would entail an increase in electricityprices. is an improbable scenario in Europe in the to medium term given economic-crisis-induced oversupply of carbon permits and the generalmove to lower electricity. Under all but the most scenarios, it is unlikelythat BEV charging lead to significant new electricity by 2020-2030.

One point to keep in is that marginal built will not necessarily be thesame as used capacity. Under an scenario where BEV uptake utilities may choose to install new to handle added BEV-relateddemand. the last plant built not necessarily be the last plant on-line to handle time-specific BEV demand.

This is an important much new built capacity may be (e.g. solar and wind) but the plant at a given cost may be (e.g. gas). For the purposes of our we assume an average carbon of 90 gramsof CO2 per kWh (adapting the French carbon profile of 82g CO2/kWh to account for a greater share of CO 2 marginal power generation). Table 6 displays different CO2 intensities for electricity productionby Table 6: 2008 Carbon of electricity production for selected by source (g CO2/kWh) Non- OECD France UK Japan USA Europe OECD y Europe 826.3 953.7 856.6 919.4 910.7 901.4 Oil 534.0 576.8 547.2 457.8 573.6 651.8 Gas 329.2 289.3 267.3 379.7 438.8 390.0 Total 335.2 509.2 441.2 486.9 436.5 745.0Source: 2008 IEA CO2 Emissions Fuel Combustion Statistics.Philippe — Discussion Paper 2012-03 — © 2012 21

ELECTRIC VEHICLES COSTS, SUBSIDIES AND PROSPECTS2.13. and disposal CO2 emissions for BEVs and In this analysis, we do not account for and component production-relatedCO2 emissions nor for emissions related to the disposal of A full lifecycleassessment should these into account, as evidence is emerging that be significant and differ according to technology.

Recent analysis by the UK Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership et al, 2011) looking at projectedvehicle in 2015 highlights these They find that CO2 linkedto vehicle disposal are in all cases (1-3% of total emissions). They alsoestimate a 2015 BEV will be roughly as carbon intensive as a mid-sized ICE respective lifetimes excluding CO2 linked to production. Accounting CO2 emissions changes the picture

They estimateproduction-related emissions for a gasoline car to represent slightly than aquarter of overall (23%) and slightly more a quarter for a mid-sizeddiesel (26%) overall lifecycle emissions for vehicles are projected to beessentially the in 2015. For a mid-sized BEV, they estimate thatproduction-related CO2 will represent nearly (46%) of total lifecycle CO in 201516. This suggests ignoring production-related CO2, (aswe do in our analysis) may significantly total BEV emissions – in thepresent by about a quarter when production-related CO2 emissions forboth and BEVs17.16. Assuming an electricity content of 500 gCO2/kWh17 Additionally, a major share of CO2 emissions to BEV production are related to battery replacing the battery during the lifetime will further BEV lifecycle intensity and erode the BEV CO2 over like ICEs.22 Crist — Discussion Paper — © OECD/ITF 2012

ELECTRIC VEHICLES REVISITED – SUBSIDIES AND PROSPECTS Box 3. Seasonal of Electricity Carbon ContentYearly figures for France show at night from 02:00 to approximately 4 GW inbase load are available – largely enough to recharge

1 million BEVs to a range. However, yearly do not serve as a good guide for available baseloadcapacity as this by season and is largely determined by needs in winter and air-conditioning during the summer. In France, due to a reliance on electric heating,ADEME that there are only one or two per day during the winter where loadcapacity is sufficient to meet electricity demand (in 2007) 2009).

This meansmost of the for vehicle re-charging outside of time slots would on morecarbon-intensive marginal capacity no new baseload capacity be made In anotherexample, the figure below how the CO2 intensity of marginal electricity varies bytime of day and month of if 1% of California vehicle traffic composed of BEVs rechargingduring hours. More continental (e.g. with hotter and colder winters)might show intensities even if the marginal mix the same. Marginal electricity CO2 by time of day and month of year in (Scenario with BEVs 1% of total California VMT, recharging, compare to well-to-tank CO2 of gasoline of 346 gCO2 kWh-1 in Avg. recharging Average marginal generation GHG emissons (gCO 2eq/ KWh-1) HR (Off-peak) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Year 00 307 630 548 612 531 494 564 638 646 608 634 586 641 595 01 307 634 544 589 517 502 548 570 633 583 623 547 630 577 02 276 619 535 586 507 515 530 546 614 571 595 549 630 567 03 184 623 539 588 512 509 543 541 618 576 589 552 629 569 04 123 639 562 609 535 510 546 569 618 596 622 573 639 585 05 61 646 615 632 592 509 543 610 644 630 636 625 653 611 06 31 654 633 640 600 566 600 614 652 639 638 612 640 624 07 15 657 638 644 639 615 616 650 673 654 656 640 641 644 08 15 665 642 661 644 631 651 667 684 672 654 654 652 657 09 46 665 648 653 650 657 667 682 679 679 655 659 660 663 10 77 654 648 661 661 677 681 684 692 673 674 666 662 670 11 77 658 649 665 670 676 681 707 715 694 667 659 664 676 12 77 658 651 658 667 678 687 714 721 710 658 659 663 677 13 77 658 654 658 667 675 685 721 743 699 672 656 652 679 14 77 655 643 660 661 685 688 745 742 691 675 656 658 680 15 31 648 645 669 658 676 690 750 721 712 681 659 654 680 16 15 657 646 653 652 678 683 732 736 699 671 663 658 678 17 15 687 680 656 658 673 679 710 774 704 669 669 671 686 18 61 687 680 666 660 665 668 696 725 699 680 669 685 682 19 123 678 667 670 671 686 679 693 704 705 675 664 672 681 20 184 673 662 660 662 681 687 675 695 683 670 656 666 673 21 276 660 660 662 659 670 681 687 693 680 656 647 664 668 22 307 654 629 636 627 600 695 660 666 663 654 634 661 648 23 307 647 576 625 555 510 590 658 659 645 632 632 648 615 Demand-w av g. 647 601 629 590 580 617 639 665 640 640 613 650 626 Source: (McCarthy Yang, CO2 price Human-induced climate impacts will likely be but their scope and scaleis as are specific climate change projections.

This makes aspecific social cost to CO2 emissions challenging. The cost of in theEU ETS can serve as a proxy an imperfect one at that since the cap is set with a political target by 2020) and carbon prices in the relate18 Though marginal electricity generation is more than gasoline in California, the higher efficiency of electric vs. ICEs more than up for the difference in fuel carbon and BEVs under this still emit less CO2 their ICE and hybrid equivalents.Philippe — Discussion Paper 2012-03 — © 2012 23

ELECTRIC VEHICLES COSTS, SUBSIDIES AND PROSPECTSmore to scarcity rather than costs. In France, semi-official CO2 estimates have been in two reports (the “Boiteux” and the “Quinet”report) (Depoorter Assimon, They both assign a of 32€/tonne in 2010. TheQuinet estimates this cost to by 5.8% per year through slowing to 4%per year

In our baseline case, we do not assign a to CO 2 emissions, preferring, as in(Prudhomme, to calculate the absolute change in CO 2 resulting fromBEV over ICE However, the CO2 cost estimates above can be used forsensitivity Local pollution costs We local pollution costs to be per kilometre, as does (Prudhomme,2010), by about 4.5% per year to for technical progress in reducingtailpipe

This figure, adapted an official French government (the Boiteux commission) is for cars in non-dense urban It also isan average of the external costs of air pollution – for petrol and dieselcars. We expect much BEV driving will place in urban areas and insome of the larger, denser areas. We also expect the specific external costsrelated to from diesel cars to NOx and particulate matter emissions) slightly higher than French figures (which both petrol and diesel that real-world emissions of substances will also be than thosepredicted by test-cycle

For these reasons, our figures for the pollutioncosts of ICEs might actual costs and thus to an higher costdifferential between and ICEs than might exist. Table 7 summarises the of the parameters used in our baseline Philippe Crist — Discussion 2012-03 — © OECD/ITF 2012

VEHICLES REVISITED – COSTS, AND PROSPECTS Table 7: Value of used in baseline case Light 5-Door Commercial Sedan Compact Vehicle Vehicles Vehicle life in 15 15 15 Discount rate 4% 4% 4% Car travel (km per 35 30 90 Days use per year 365 365 260 Car travel 12775 10950 23400 decline in car travel in percent per 1% 1% 1% Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) Purchase cost in € 15800 16400 Fuel in km/litre (litre/100km) 22.22 25.0 (4.0) 18.9 Oil price in $/barrel 90 90 90 Oil price in %/year) 6% 6% 6% Fuel excise tax in 0.4399 0.4399 0.4399 in fuel tax (%/year) 0% 0% 0% VAT on fuel 19.6% 19.6% Other costs in €/lit 0.193 0.193 Change in local costs (%/yr) -4% -4% -4% Local costs in €/km 0.006 0.006 Lifecycle CO2 emissions for fuel in kg/lit 3.1 3.1 3.1 WTW* CO2 per km 142 126 167 Battery Electric Vehicle Purchase cost in € (w/out 26300 20700 21200 rental in €/yr 984 948 1068 BEV in € 5000 5000 5000 BEV wall charger in € 800 800 800 BEV recharge in € 400 400 400 Electricity efficiency in km/kWh 7.7 (13) 9 (11) 6.1 (16.5) price in €/kWh 0.088 0.088 Change in electricity 1% 1% 1% Electricity Tax (€ per kWh) 0.03 0.03 CO2 content of electricity in 90 90 90 WTW* BEV grams CO2 per km 12 10 15* “Well-to-wheel”3. As can be seen in Table 8, under our assumptions including low carbonelectricity of France, the BEV configurations examined emit approximately 18to 50 less CO2 than their ICE over their lifetime. they costsociety €7 000 to €12 000 more their ICE equivalent.

For the sedan and this amounts to a marginal cost of approximately €500 to pertonne of CO2, which is at the end of the range of costs of measures to CO 2emissions in the transport sector. The van, largely because of travelvolumes (and thus fuel costs), represents a deal all round and displaysmuch marginal abatement costs.Philippe — Discussion Paper 2012-03 — © 2012 25

ELECTRIC VEHICLES COSTS, SUBSIDIES AND PROSPECTS 8: Results of baseline case for BEV-ICE pairsSource: ITF analysis on data from Renault, IEA. Results are more for consumers. A consumer will pay €4000 and€5000 more for a BEV the vehicles’ lifetimes in the case of a or a compactcar. But a BEV van in our base case will cost the user €4000 lessthan an equivalent ICE the lifetime of the vehicle, or nearly the as an ICEequivalent over the three-year payback period (for the mentionedabove).

Under these one might expect that a already exists for BEVvans if buyers have confidence in the driving ranges and dealersupport for vehicles. Even without the subsidy, a BEV light van user in case would only pay more over the lifetime of the – calling intoquestion the need to BEVs where a good case already exists. A market also likely for “early adopters” of green who arewilling to pay more for a BEV sedan or car with less potential than acomparable ICE. may be especially the case for those who the dynamic drivingstyle of the vehicles here.

However, it seems the additional cost of BEVswill an important barrier to general penetration in the passenger carmarket. may be especially true if consumers’ in BEVs declines as ICE fuelefficiency as recent survey evidence (Giffi, Vitale, Drew, Sase, 2011). We have many, sometimes contestable, regarding certainvariables in our baseline In Table 9, we test the sensitivity of our Philippe Crist — Discussion 2012-03 — © OECD/ITF 2012

VEHICLES REVISITED – COSTS, AND PROSPECTSresults to changes in those These findings suggest costs for BEVs remainhigh for and even more so for society most typical use scenarios. 9: Sensitivity tests of various changes (compact 5-door Cost per Excess lifetime lifetime Lifetime CO2 tonne CO2 cost of societal cost of tonnes reduced BEV, € € €/tonne 5-door compact BEV 4 880 12 000 18 673 Private discount rate 8% 4 100 10 710 18 600 ICE price +20% 1 720 8 850 18 470 (a) BEV purchase -20% 740 7 870 18 440 (b) Both of above -2 430 4 710 18 260 Battery cost -30% (c) 1 710 8 840 18 500 All of (a+b+c) -5 590 1 540 18 86 ICE maintenance costs 2 320 9 450 18 530 more than BEV Oil price Bbl 3 430 10 800 18 600 Oil price $70 Bbl 5 840 12 810 18 720 Oil price + 12%/yr 2 600 10 100 18 570 taxes + 5%/yr 3 970 12 000 18 670 Electricity + 5%/yr 5 220 12 360 18 690 “Revenue neutral” 7 540 12 000 18 670 taxation BEV efficiency +30% 4 500 11 730 18 650 ICE +50% 7 410 13 500 11 1 180 Both of above 7 030 13 230 12 1 120 CO2 of electricity 4 880 12 000 14 860 = EU Gas CO2 content of electricity 7 880 12 000 6 1 960 = EU 120 km/day, 260 days/yr -6 200 4 870 50 100 4-door Baseline (35 km/day) 4 390 12 240 23 524 BEV “Taxi” -16 320 -870 86 -10 (150km/day, 312 days/yr) We find our results to be robust to variable changes though we thatdifferent assumptions regarding key variables will either attenuate theconsumer cost of or even make them competitive than ICEs.

RENAULT Kangoo Van Z.E. 22 kWh Li-ion 5dr / Electric (av UK mix)

is muchless the case when at social costs. We also the impact of some variableson CO2 and on CO2 abatement costs.Philippe Crist — Paper 2012-03 — © OECD/ITF 27

ELECTRIC VEHICLES REVISITED: SUBSIDIES AND PROSPECTS Changing the rate from the social in our baseline case to one more with private decision has little impact on our final Changing the ex-battery vehicle much more so, especially if we a strong reduction in BEVcosts. BEV production volumes deliver economies of scale, BEVs much more cost with like ICEs.

recent studies underscorethe for BEVs to close the cost of gap with like ICEs time. France (Matheu, 2010: BEVs €0.16/km BEVs €0.06/km more than ICE more costly ICE France (Beeker, Bryden, BEV total cost of 2020: BEV cost of Buba, Le Moign, von €12 000 than ownership €1 000 than Hossié, 2011) ICE ICE EU (CE Delft, 2010: BEV total cost of BEV total cost of ownership 60% ownership 20% more than ICE ICE One conceivable scenario is that ICE increase (due to costly while BEV costs decrease to mass production). In that holdingall else equal, would already benefit from a BEV than an ICE under baseline assumptions.

If battery were also to reduce by 30% at the then the BEV’s lifetime to society would drop to €1 700 – still a cost –but a small one compared to our baseline Under the latterscenario (decreasing BEV and costs, increasing ICE costs), a wouldsave approximately €5500 the lifetime of the BEV and the marginal CO 2 abatementcosts to nearly €100 per tonne. the €5 000 subsidy under this still result in savings for BEV Evidence from the European car indicates that, contrary to had beenpredicted, decreasing ICE CO2 emission have been accompanied by than increasing ICE vehicle in real terms (European for Transportand the Environment, 2011). technology costs linked to compliance arebut one element to the total cost of a vehicle, the that significantdecreases in CO2 emissions not caused car prices to increase may that thecost gap between and BEVs will not close as as many have thought by beyond.

We assume that an ICE costs €70 more a year to than a BEV in linewith (Prudhomme, Others studies assume higher ICE to BEV maintenancecost differentials in the of €300-€400 in favour of BEVs Bryden, Buba, LeMoign, von Hossié, 2011)(Leurent Windisch, An increase in theICE to BEV yearly cost differential from €70 to more than halves excess consumer cost of a BEV a like ICE.

Plausible in oil prices (e.g. from to $120/Bbl) have a relatively on base case findings all else equal. One point to in mind is that theimpact of oil on comparative costs will as relative efficiencies improve.(Douglas 2011) investigate the evolution of the cost of ownership for arange of hybrids and BEV vehicles from to 2030. They find as fuelefficiency increases for ICEs for hybrid and plug-in hybrid engines), theimpact of changes in oil diminishes since fuel less to the total cost of these vehicles over Another point to keep in is that in regions28 Philippe — Discussion Paper 2012-03 — © 2012

ELECTRIC VEHICLES – COSTS, SUBSIDIES AND PROSPECTSwith low fuel taxes, the lifetime cost differential between ICE andBEV cars will be than we have calculated in favour of the ICE car. As noted ICE replacement by BEVs will a loss in government revenue,including tax revenue, that can be significant BEVs penetrate the car fleet high numbers (Van Crist, 2010). For illustration, estimates that if BEVs 10% of 2011 car sales in France wouldimply a tax loss of €0.7

This drop in revenue, at in France, could conceivablybe by an increase in other taxes to BEV and electricityproduction (if production remains in but if those revenue streams (as they are for social security one might expect a drop in of revenue (Leurent Windisch, If we adjust electricity taxes tomake up for the loss of fuel tax in the case of BEVs replacing (the“revenue-neutral” electricity tax case in 7 resulting in a

600% increase to a of €0.24/kWh), the BEV becomes much desirable to consumers than in our Changes in the energy efficiency of BEVs or ICEs do not significantly outcome of our base case We also model a case ICE efficiencyimprovements outstrip those of This is a plausible scenario technologytrajectories would likely ICEs over BEVs in of energy efficiency gains(excluding efficiency gains).

In other it is likely that ICEs experiencestronger improvements in fuel than BEVs will in electric efficiency(albeit from an high level). These efficiency trajectories increase lifetime costs of A BEV over an ICE our base case. Most do not have as much low-carbon load or marginal electricitygeneration as France. Taking a value of CO 2/kWh, more consistent natural gas plants, and a more value of 825 g CO2/kWh (typical of coal plant) we find higher carbon electricity diminishes theCO2 reduction of replacing a ICE with a BEV (without switching thebalance such a BEV produces more lifecycle CO2 an ICE19). Under theassumption all other costs remain the the use of higher carbon electricitysignificantly BEV marginal CO2 abatement costs – in the of coal-generatedelectricity, by a factor of three our baseline scenario.

In many considering the deployment of BEVs electricitygeneration is the norm. The rationale for or otherwise promoting EVs in theseinstances be principally for direct CO 2 mitigation but for developing amarket for electric in anticipation of the development of low carbon As noted earlier, however, in where there is a CO 2 emissions system, any excess emissions generating electricity for cars be offset byreductions in emissions other plants subject to trading. Different levels of taxation could also an impact on our findings.Denmark, for instance, vehicles at much higher than France and this These findings reflect the efficient BEVs under in this analysis.

Less BEVs (starting at 20% less – 6.16 km/kWh or 16.2 – emit more CO2 than ICE counterparts when powered by from OECD-EU coal In the latter and other analogous (e.g. lower BEV efficiency or carbon intensive electricity), would actually pay more for CO2 emissions (absent CO2 emission Crist — Discussion Paper — © OECD/ITF 2012 29

ELECTRIC REVISITED: COSTS, SUBSIDIES AND one reason the country has attracted as an electric car test-bed sinceelectric have been granted a exemption from registration and taxes (currently through Using the Danish vehicle tax that the pre-tax costs for ICE and BEV 5-door compact cars are the in France (in fact, they are to be higher), a battery rental of €94 20 permonth, and adjusting other to reflect the Danish case Table 10), we findthat a BEV owner would save €3 380 the lifetime of the vehicle compared toa ICE. In Denmark, the BEV is a much attractive prospect for consumers to France.

However, backing out (fuel, electricity, VAT and car registration andadding external pollution we find that the cost to of the BEV (€15 200) isstill than a like ICE (and than the French case, due to moreexpensive electricity). In the Danish BEV owners will be offered the to subscribe to “ProjectBetter Place”s of quick-swap battery stations only for the 4-door sedanmodel at not the smaller compact car we discuss Quick-swap stations areexpensive to but will allow consumers to batteries in essentially the sameamount of as filling an ICE car’s petrol “Project Better Place” has price levels for battery subscriptions depending on the number travelled per year.

For a vehicle 10 000 kilometres per year, the“Better battery subscription is set at Kr 1 495 (€201) per to which a one-time cost for a point should be added (Kr 9 or € 1 344) 22. Thisbattery cost is 2.5 the advertised battery leasing in France and has asubstantial impact on the cost comparison between the BEV and ICE BEV much more expensive to the than the like ICE and very moreexpensive for society under our Advertised battery rental for the 5-door compact are 699 Kr/month for a 36 12 500 km per year package.21 For a Renault — better Place currently does not include the ZOE. The price of a quick-drop for the smaller 5-Door compact ICE be marginally less as is the case for the difference between the Zoe and Fluence battery leases announced for the market. For our cost calculations of the Place” case, we assume home charging represents one of the BEV electricity needs, the remainder is in the quick-swap subscription.22 Both of 25% sales tax23 For the Danish we have outlined here, all else equal, a monthly leasing cost of about would just about any lifetime cost difference the BEV and ICE alternatives from the consumer’s Philippe Crist — Discussion 2012-03 — © OECD/ITF 2012

VEHICLES REVISITED – COSTS, AND PROSPECTS Table 10: “High Taxation” case – Denmark 5-door BEV) Danish case” 5-Door Compact car (30 10 950 km/yr) ICE BEV Danish variables 24 price with registration and VAT €31 200 €21 653 VAT 25% 25% Fuel excise tax (€/lt) n/a Annual car tax “(€) €178 n/a price (€/kWh) n/a €0.1183 tax (€/kWh) n/a €0.1439 Battery (€/month) n/a €94 Home charging (€, incl. VAT) €1 344 “Better Quick Change battery 10k km/yr (€/month, incl. €201 CO2 content of electricity in 302 Findings WTW CO2 reduction BEV over ICE 15 Additional consumer cost of BEV ICE, vehicle lifetime of 15 (€94/month battery cost) €3 380 Additional societal cost of BEV ICE, vehicle lifetime of 15 (€94/month battery cost) €15 200 per Ton CO2 reduced BEV over ICE (€94/month cost) €1 050 Additional consumer of BEV over ICE, vehicle of 15 years (“Better Life” €8 320 Additional societal cost of BEV ICE, vehicle lifetime of 15 (“Better Life” subscription) €28 280 per Ton CO2 reduced BEV over ICE (“Better subscription)(€) €1 950 The amount of annual per vehicle plays a key role in thecomparative cost balance BEVs and ICEs in France elsewhere). As seen inthe of the BEV van in Table 6, increasing annual use has a significant effecton overall

Similarly, increasing daily for the 5-door compact car reduces of ownership gap significantly (see 3). Holding all our baseline assumptionsequal, a car travelling slightly more 120 kms/day results in societal cost savings). At an oil price of Bbl, a compact car travelling 44 is an attractive option for consumers and at 90 society benefits aswell25.24 tax is 105% of the first 79k Kr of the car’s value and 180% of the remaining value. Taxable value is to the ex-tax price of the car plus the 25% adjusted downwards for the presence of safety equipment (e.g.

EPS, additional airbags) and treatment. Final tax inclusive is further adjusted to account for low consumption and seat belt (see http://www.skm.dk/tal_statistik/satser_og_beloeb/228.html)25 In the Danish outlined earlier, increasing travel to approximately 170 km for the €94 battery case and 200 km for the “Better Place” eliminates the excess societal of operating a BEV in place of an ICE (at 60 km per day, the consumer cost is eliminated in the “Better Place” case).Philippe — Discussion Paper 2012-03 — © 2012 31

ELECTRIC VEHICLES REVISITED: SUBSIDIES AND PROSPECTS Figure 3: and Societal Break-even Curves: Diesel Car, 365 days/yr BEV consumer more than ICE BEV consumer less than ICE BEV society* less than ICE 200 180 160 140 Oil ($/Bbl) Compact car, oil @ 44km/day 120 Compact car, oil @ 93km/day 100 80 Compact car, Compact car, $90/Bbl, ($90/Bbl, 30 km/day) 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 150 200 Kilometres per day*See Methodology section for of societal costs In the bottom of 7, we simulate using the BEV 4-door as a taxi,travelling 150 kilometres a day (consistent daily travel for taxis Paris), 6 daysa week. For batteries this would a battery switching service or tonumerous (and expensive) charging points, the cost of has not beenaccounted for here. Ignoring the of charging infrastructure, the additional of the BEV from consumer and societal are -€16 320 and -€870,respectively – i.e. the BEV money in comparison to the ICE 26 for both the overall. At these levels of replacing an ICE with a BEV also to netnegative marginal CO2 abatement – i.e. each ton of CO2 reduced netsocietal benefits, not costs.

As in the high-travel scenarios we examine, €5000 subsidy does not the consumer case for BEV use. The to daily travel distance a clear tension in BEV roll-out.The a BEV travels per day, the more it compares to an ICE. Yet mostBEVs are constrained by their daily range – sometimes significantly so climatic and traffic conditions.

range requires increasing (or swapping the battery) which costs and thus erodes of BEVs over ICE counterparts. It is that several of the parameters we examined in this section concurrently – what then be the outcome of multiple simultaneous the lines of those outlined Largely due to significant fuel savings.32 Philippe Crist — Paper 2012-03 — © OECD/ITF

ELECTRIC VEHICLES REVISITED – SUBSIDIES AND PROSPECTS If we assume ICE vehicle costs increase BEV vehicle costs decrease costs decrease 30%, oil grow 6% per year from Bbl, Fuel taxesincrease by 2% as do electricity prices, and that ICE increases 50% andBEV efficiency we find that a consumer save about €4 520 over the a BEV (compared to its ICE counterpart) and that would still face an of approximately €2 030 (assuming a €5 000 purchase The BEV wouldemit 12 tonnes less of CO2 its lifetime than its ICE counterpart at a cost ofabout €174 per How likely is this scenario? We say.

It would seem some of the elementsof the scenario come about and that are much more contestable. is a key element surrounding business and decision-making regardingelectric vehicles. a decision with an uncertain can be characterised as agamble – one that BEV manufacturers seem confident to make at present.On the other overcoming uncertainty about car markets is a rationale forgovernment If manufacturers are correct in believing they have incorporated fromthe past and are offering a mature technology to a targeted and market then the current of electric cars may surpass the success of previous electric car The analysis of a few limited casesthat we undertaken in this paper, would seem to indicate the costbarriers for consumers are still and that uptake of the EVs we have largely, but not exclusively, be conditioned by the of governmentsubsidies.

Electric vehicles promise financial savings for operators withoutsubsidies. These fleet vehicles that predictable daily travel and canbe charged on-site at shared car systems where takes place severaltimes a day and vehicle travel levels are urban delivery vehicles and range allows). In France, the purchasing authority has coordinated single commercial order of vehicles (18 700 units) for several and commercial vehicle fleets post office, national operator, generalgovernment services and large private companies Electricité de Franceand various operators). The rationale for subsidizing purchases is not clearsince these are generally operated in conditions to the use of electricvehicles and their operators the financing capacity to make the capitalinvestments needed without

Crucially, however, we have in this paper that will compareBEVs to like when making purchasing This model may not hold country markets (where future vehicle sales take place) or for manyurban (50% of the population in 2010 to 70% in 2050). The BEVthat is bought of an ICE may be a two-wheeler or other small, lowrange, agile, easy-to-park and urban electric vehicle27.27 offers a small 2-passenger electric vehicle as part of its BEV – the “Twizzy”.

It has a 6.1 kWh battery, an advertised of 100 km to 120 km (ECE- 15 test cycle) and an price of €6 999 (max. speed to €7 690, excluding the battery comparison, Renault’s small car, the “Twingo”, retails for €7 The battery lease is advertised at for a 36 month lease and 7 500 kms/yr.Philippe — Discussion Paper 2012-03 — © 2012 33

ELECTRIC VEHICLES COSTS, SUBSIDIES AND PROSPECTS How then are governments that the has progressed beyond the“hype” and subsidies are warranted to help BEVs gain traction in an Certainly, given the wide of subsidies, many believe may be the casebut our analysis points out the societal costs of BEVs to first-order effects)are still Some commentators argue the costs of intervention will be compensated by future savings (on oil imports and avoided environmentalcosts).

suggest that high of government support for electric divertsattention from other, more cost-effective investments. Are purchasesubsidies for electric cars a bet” for society? Our analysis not conclusivelyanswer that question but that in those cases electric cars alreadycompare to fossil-fuelled vehicles, subsidies may be and thatwhere they do not compare the onus is on demonstrating that value for money.34 Philippe — Discussion Paper 2012-03 — © 2012

ELECTRIC VEHICLES – COSTS, SUBSIDIES AND PROSPECTS (2009, August). Enjeux électriques, émissions CO2 des transports à lhorizon 2020-2030. Agence de et de la Maitrise de lEnergie.Axsen, J. Kurani, K. A. (2010). Are batteries ready for buyers?

Transport Policy, S. (2009). The car industry and the blow-out of the hype. (U. o. Utrecht, Ed.) Netherlands: Innovation Studies (ISU) Working Paper Étienne, Alan Bryden, Buba, Caroline Le Moign, von Pechmann, and Gaëlle Hossié. “La de demain: carburants et électricité.” Centre dAnalyse Stratégique, C. Hourcade, J.-C. Sassi, O. A. (2009, Octobre).

Electric What economic viability and benefits in contrasting futures? France: Centre International de sur LEnvironnement et le Développement (CIRED).CE “Impacts of Electric Vehicles D4: Economic Analysis and Business Delft, April 2011.Delorme, A. S. Sharer, P. Rousseau, R. (2009). Benefit Analysis of Advanced from 2010 to 2045. Proceedings. Stavanger, Norway: A. (2008, April).

Les véhicules légers en 2006. SESP Rapides #349. France: de lÉcologie, de lÉnergie, du Développement et de lAménagement du territoire.Depoorter, S. Assimon, (2011, May). Les véhicules en perspective: Analyse couts-avantages et potentielle. (F. Maurel, Ed.) Général au Développement Durable.Douglas, C. A. (2011, July).

Influences on the Low Car Market 2020– 2030. United Kingdom: Element for the UK Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership.Early, R. L. An, F. Green-Weiskel, L. (2011, May). Vehicles in the Context of Sustainable in China. The Innovation Center for and Transportation (iCET), Background No.9 (CSD19/2011/BP9) for the United Department of Economic and Social Commission on Sustainable Development, New United States:Edwards, R. Larivé,

Mahieu, V. Rouveirolles, P. (2008). Analysis of Future Automotive and Powertrains in the European Context, Bruxelles: CONCAWE, EUCAR, A. Burnham, A. Wang, M. Molburg, J. A. (2009, February). Well-to-Wheels Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis of Hybrid Vehicles.

ANL/ESD/09-2. Illinois, United States of Argonne National Laboratory.Philippe — Discussion Paper 2012-03 — © 2012 35

ELECTRIC VEHICLES COSTS, SUBSIDIES AND PROSPECTSEuropean for Transport and the Environment. (2011, How Clean are Europes Cars? An of carmaker progress towards EU CO2 in 2010. Brussels, Belgium.Fenn, J. M. (2008, June). Understanding Hype Cycles.

Cambridge, MA, States: Harvard Business M. Ritter, N. Schmidt, C. Vance, C. November). Economic Impacts the Promotion of Renewable Energy – The German Experience. Bochum, Ruhr-Universität Bochum (RUB), of Economics.Giffi, C. Vitale, J. Drew, M. Y. Sase, M. (2011, October).

Electric vehicle realities consumer expectations. Deloitte Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu W. (2007, August). International of Fossil Fuel Efficiency. Netherlands: Ecofys.Hacker, F. Harthan, R. F. Zimmer, W. (2009, June).

Impacts and Impact on the Electricity of a Large Scale Introduction of Cars in Europe. ETC/ACC Paper. Copenhagen: European Centre on Air and Climate Change.Helms, H. M. Lambrecht, U. Liebach, A. (2010).

vehicle and plug-in hybrid efficiency and life cycle 18th International Symposium and Air Pollution (pp. 113-274). Switzerland: ETH-Zurich.Horst, J. Frey, G. U. (2009, March). Auswirkungen von auf den Kraftwerkspark und die CO2-Emissionen in Deutschland.

Germany: WWF Deutschland.IEA. (2009). Balances of Non-OECD Member — Extended Balances. France: International Energy (2009). Energy Balances of Countries — Extended

Paris, France: International Agency.IEA. (2011). Energy and Taxes. Quarterly Statistics: Quarter 2011. Paris: Energy Agency.IEA. (2010, World Energy Outlook

Paris: International Energy S. Cherry, C. R. Bechle, M. J. Wu, Y. Marshall, J. D. Electric Vehicles in China: and Health Impacts. Environmental and Technology.

46.Leurent, Fabien, and Windisch. “Avantages et coûts du élictrique pour les finances modèle dévaluation inégrée et au territoire français.” Congrès 2012.Matheu, Michel. “Quelles pour les Infrastructures de Charge?” made to the Ecomobility workshop by the Sustainable Development Chair of Polytechnique-EDF. Paris, 29 September R. Yang, C. (2009, April 2). marginal electricity for near-term and fuel cell vehicle in California: Impacts on vehicle gas emissions. Journal of Power .Michalek, J. Chester, M. Jaramillo, P. C. Shiau, C.-S. N. Lave, L.

Valuation of plug-in vehicle air emissions and oil displacement benefits. of the National Academy of Sciences of the States of America. vol. 108 ( no. 40 Philippe Crist — Discussion 2012-03 — © OECD/ITF 2012

VEHICLES REVISITED – COSTS, AND PROSPECTSPatterson, J. Alexander, M. Gurr, A. May). Preparing for a Life CO2 Measure. RD.11/124801.4. Ricardo, Low Vehicle Partnership.Prudhomme, R. (2010,

Electric Vehicles: A Tentative and Environmental Evaluation. Discussion 2010-22. Paris: France Transport Forum — Publishing.Van Dender, K. Crist, P. November).

What does fuel economy cost and taxpayers? Some illustrations. ITF-KOTI Joint Seminar on Growth in Transport. Paris: Publishing.Voosen, P. (2009, August Spains Solar Market Offers a Cautionary Tale Feed-In Tariffs.

Retrieved 14, 2011, from New York online: http://nyti.ms/bmKp4CWerber, M. Fischer, M. P. (2009). Batteries: Lower than gasoline? Energy 7.Zachariadis, T. (2006).

On the baseline of automobile fuel economy in Energy Policy. 34 (14).Philippe — Discussion Paper 2012-03 — © 2012 37

International Transport rue André Pascal75775 Paris 16itf.contact@oecd.orgwww.internationaltransportforum.org

RENAULT Kangoo Van Z.E. 22 kWh Li-ion 5dr / Electric (av UK mix)
RENAULT Kangoo Van Z.E. 22 kWh Li-ion 5dr / Electric (av UK mix)
RENAULT Kangoo Van Z.E. 22 kWh Li-ion 5dr / Electric (av UK mix)
RENAULT Kangoo Van Z.E. 22 kWh Li-ion 5dr / Electric (av UK mix)
RENAULT Kangoo Van Z.E. 22 kWh Li-ion 5dr / Electric (av UK mix)
RENAULT Kangoo Van Z.E. 22 kWh Li-ion 5dr / Electric (av UK mix)
RENAULT Kangoo Van Z.E. 22 kWh Li-ion 5dr / Electric (av UK mix)

Interesting articles

Other articles of the category "Renault":

Our partners
Follow us
Contact us
Our contacts



About this site

For all questions about advertising, please contact listed on the site.

Catalog ALL Electric Cars and hybrid/ News and Information about Electric Car and Electric Vehicle Technologies, batteries for vehicle catalog with specifications, pictures, ratings, reviews and discusssions about Electric and Hybrid cars - Green energy