Electric Vehicles: Likely Consequences of U.S. and Other Nations'
Programs and Policies (Chapter Report, 12/30/94, GAO/PEMD-95-7).
California and several northeastern states have adopted or are
considering legislation that would require automobile
manufacturers--both foreign and domestic--to supply 70,000 electric
vehicles in 1998 and nearly a million by 2003. Uncertainties about the
readiness of electric vehicle technology led GAO to compare electric
vehicle development and commercialization programs internationally.
Reviewing programs in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Sweden,
Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, as well as the United States, GAO
sought to answer the following questions: (1) What are the current
barriers to the widespread introduction of electric vehicles? (2) What
are the nature and extent of other nations' policies and programs for
developing, producing, and promoting electric vehicles? (3) What are the
likely effects of introducing electric vehicles in terms of costs to the
individual, national energy savings, and effects on the environment?
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: PEMD-95-7
TITLE: Electric Vehicles: Likely Consequences of U.S. and Other
Nations' Programs and Policies
DATE: 12/30/94
SUBJECT: Motor vehicles
Motor vehicle pollution control
Automobile industry
Cost effectiveness analysis
Technology transfer
Alternative energy sources
Environmental policies
Transportation research
Research and development
Foreign governments
IDENTIFIER: France
Germany
Italy
Japan
Sweden
Switzerland
United Kingdom
California Low Emission Vehicle Program
Chicago (IL)
Los Angeles (CA)
Denver (CO)
New York (NY)
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
House of Representatives
December 1994
ELECTRIC VEHICLES - LIKELY
CONSEQUENCES OF U.S. AND OTHER
NATIONS' PROGRAMS AND POLICIES
GAO/PEMD-95-7
Electric Vehicles
(973387)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
ABB - Asea Brown Boveri Hochenergiebatterie, GmbH (German high
energy battery company)
ADEME - Agence de l'Environnement et de la Ma�trise de l'Energie
(French Agency for Environment and Energy Management)
AFV - Alternative fuel vehicle
ARPA - Advanced Research Projects Agency
AVERE - Association Europeenne des Vehicules Electriques Routiers
(European Association of Electric Road Vehicles)
BMFT - Bundesministerium f�r Forschjung und Technologie (German
Ministry for Research and Technology)
CARB - California Air Resources Board
CAT - Clean Air Transport, Inc.
CITELEC - European Association of Cities Interested in Electric
Vehicles
CNG - Compressed natural gas
CNR - Italian National Council of Research
DAUG - Deutschen Automobilgesellschaft mbH (German Automobile
Society)
DOD - U.S. Department of Defense
DOE - U.S. Department of Energy
EDF - Electricit� de France (French national utility)
ENEA - Ente per le Nuove Tecnologie, L'Energia e l'Ambiente
(Italian Agency for New Technology, Energy, and the Environment)
ENEL - Italian Public Electricity Board
EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPRI - Electric Power Research Institute
EV - Electric vehicle
EVOC - Japanese Electric Vehicle Community System
GAO - U.S. General Accounting Office
GSA - General Services Administration
ICEV - Internal combustion engine vehicle
IEA - International Energy Association
JEVA - Japan Electric Vehicle Association
LEV - Low-emission vehicle
MITI - Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry
NEDO - Japanese New Energy and Industrial Technology Development
Organization
NHTSA - U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NUTEK - Swedish National Board for Industrial and Technical
Development
OECD - Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
PNGV - Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles
SEER - French Soci�t� Europ�enne des Electromobiles Rochelaises
SMUD - Sacramento Municipal Utility District
USABC - U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-250142
December 30, 1994
The Honorable George E. Brown, Jr.
Chairman, Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This report responds to your request that we examine international
electric vehicle development and commercialization programs. Our
study encompassed a review of current barriers to widespread electric
vehicle implementation, field visits in seven nations and the United
States to examine electric vehicle programs and policies, and
analyses of electric vehicle effects on economics, energy, and the
environment. Our purpose in providing this review is to assist the
Committee as it considers policies for an effective federal role in
researching, developing, testing, and deploying electric vehicles.
We will be sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Energy,
and we will also make copies available to others upon request. If
you have any questions or would like additional information, please
call me at (202) 512-3092. Major contributors to this report are
listed in appendix IV.
Sincerely yours,
Kwai-Cheung Chan
Director for Program Evaluation
in Physical Systems Areas
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
============================================================ Chapter 0
PURPOSE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1
California and several northeastern states have adopted or are
considering legislation that would require automobile
manufacturers--both foreign and domestic--to supply some 70,000
electric vehicles in 1998 and nearly a million by 2003.
Uncertainties about the readiness of electric vehicle technology led
the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology to ask GAO to
compare electric vehicle development and commercialization programs
internationally. In particular, the Committee asked GAO to review
other nations' programs that might inform current and proposed U.S.
policies and programs to support electric vehicles. Reviewing
programs in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, and
the United Kingdom, as well as the United States, GAO sought to
answer the following questions: (1) What are the current barriers to
the widespread introduction of electric vehicles? (2) What are the
nature and extent of other nations' policies and programs for
developing, producing, and promoting electric vehicles? (3) What are
the likely effects of introducing electric vehicles in terms of costs
to the individual, national energy savings, and effects on the
environment?
BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2
The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 requires states to
alleviate regional air pollution. Electric vehicles emit no direct
air pollutants and are therefore seen as an environmentally friendly
substitute for internal combustion engine vehicles, particularly in
urban areas where poor ambient air quality is believed to pose a
serious health threat. Thus, some states are including electric
vehicles in their efforts to reduce air pollution.
The largest government initiative anywhere to support the widespread
introduction of electric vehicles is in California legislation that
requires that 2 percent of vehicles marketed in that state be
zero-emission vehicles by 1998, with increases to 10 percent by 2003.
Eleven northeastern and mid-Atlantic states have adopted or are
considering similar legislation. At the federal level, electric
vehicle programs with various funding levels and scopes have been
initiated through the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act of 1991, the Energy Policy Act of 1992, and the National Defense
Authorization Act of 1993. In the most ambitious federal effort, the
Department of Energy (DOE) is in a $262 million partnership with the
U.S. automobile industry to develop advanced batteries for electric
vehicles.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3
The ultimate viability of electric vehicles for widespread
transportation cannot now be predicted or ensured. Five major
barriers to the immediate introduction of electric vehicles are
limitations of current battery technology, gaps in required
infrastructure, uncertain safety, uncertain market potential, and
high initial purchase price. Extensive efforts to eliminate these
barriers are inherently risky and will require substantial money,
time, and attention.
The U.S. policy toward electric vehicles is fragmented in two ways.
First, already limited funds are divided into several small programs
across three different federal departments. Second and more
importantly, the lack of emphasis on the barriers that can be
addressed before a battery breakthrough and that ultimately must be
resolved to market a viable vehicle--namely, issues of infrastructure
support, market development, and production--leaves a gap between
state policies mandating electric vehicle markets and federal
policies supporting battery technology initiatives.
The fragmented U.S. approach, when coupled with other nations' more
comprehensive focus on infrastructure, marketing, and production,
raises the specter of past U.S. technological successes better
commercialized by foreign competitors. The United States may fund
the successful development of an advanced battery that other
countries could quickly incorporate into marketable, low-cost,
performance-tested vehicles. The case of electric vehicles,
moreover, could pose a unique risk because of the artificial U.S.
market created by state mandates.
The potential benefits of introducing electric vehicles are not
uniform across all nations. The range and diversity of electric
vehicles' economic, energy, and environmental effects suggest that
they could not solve all transportation and environmental problems
even if they were available immediately. Yet, without comprehensive
support, they are not likely to achieve enough success to contribute
at all to increasing energy security and decreasing air pollution.
PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4
BARRIERS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1
State-of-the-art batteries typically have a range of about 80 to 100
miles, acceleration power that is somewhat less than that of a
traditional vehicle, and a maximum operating life of 500 to 2,000
charges. Current battery types vary in performance and other
criteria important to their ultimate success, such as servicing and
maintenance, recharging efficiency, mass production feasibility, and
price.
Infrastructure requirements can be met, but most major components of
recharging, service, and toxic battery recycling support are not in
place. Electric vehicles also present some unique safety hazards
from the chemical constituents and high voltages and operating
temperatures of some batteries. Battery mass may also affect vehicle
maneuverability and crashworthiness.
Electric vehicles face an uncertain market potential until consumers
adjust to their unfamiliar performance characteristics. However,
corporate and government fleets typically travel within narrow daily
ranges and return to a central garage, suggesting that electric
vehicles could be first introduced into such fleets. Currently
quoted initial purchase prices and production costs vary widely, from
under $20,000 to more than $350,000 for an electric van. However,
the initial purchase price of vehicles that meet the reasonable
demands of consumers will most likely remain at least two to three
times higher than comparable internal combustion engine vehicle
prices in the near term.
INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.2
International approaches to eliminating these barriers vary. Japan
addresses current battery technology and market barriers by funding
government and industry research consortia and targeting government
and commercial fleets for an initial market. Swiss manufacturers are
developing high-performance, lightweight vehicles to meet
international crash test standards. France, Germany, Japan, and
Switzerland assess infrastructure needs and market characteristics
through large national and local demonstration projects that include
public recharging stations and maintenance facilities as well as
through public education and familiarization programs.
The United States has focused on two ends of the commercialization
process: research and development and market establishment. In
contrast, efforts to pilot, demonstrate, and develop empirically
based assessments of how best to introduce electric vehicles have
been rather limited, particularly in comparison with the emphasis
placed on these processes in other countries. Funds have not been
appropriated for two major authorized electric vehicle programs in
the Energy Policy Act, and demonstration programs funded by defense
appropriations are located primarily on military bases.
Demonstration program officials cite considerable difficulty
obtaining electric vehicles in sufficient numbers for adequate field
testing.
Several foreign manufacturers potentially subject to California-type
legislation are now producing and testing electric vehicles using
limited-performance batteries, in part to avoid duplicating the work
and expected products of the U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium. If
successful, some may well have low-cost, performance-tested vehicles
ready to be fitted with the advanced batteries now being developed by
the consortium.
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL
EFFECTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.3
The high initial costs of electric vehicles and batteries produced at
low volumes outweigh any benefits from their reduced maintenance and
fueling costs. When electric vehicles and batteries are produced in
high volume, however, consumers in all nations except the United
States could expect to pay less to own and operate an electric
vehicle than they would pay for a comparable gasoline vehicle.
Consumers in the United States pay less for gasoline than those in
any other nation. Thus, the United States has the least favorable
electricity-to-gasoline price ratio for reducing operating costs.
While currently available electric vehicles use 20 to 35 percent more
primary energy than gasoline vehicles, advanced technology electric
vehicles are anticipated to reduce U.S. primary energy consumption
by 30 to 35 percent in 2010. The United States would save more
annually ($2.5 billion) by replacing 10 percent of its vehicle
numbers with electric vehicles than any other nation GAO reviewed,
while Italy would save the least (approximately $300 million).
Electric vehicles eliminate the direct emissions of hydrocarbons and
carbon monoxide associated with urban smog. However, nations that
rely heavily on coal and oil for electricity production, including
the United States, could see substantial increases in sulfur dioxide
emissions (a major component of soot, smoke, and acid deposits) and
no change or even moderate increases in carbon dioxide and nitrogen
oxides. The feasibility and costs of monitoring and containing these
added emissions would have to be considered in the implementation of
effective electric vehicle programs.
Electric vehicles--or any single technology--will not solve the
world's assorted transportation-related problems. This nation's
fuel-neutral energy policy divides funding among many fuel types, in
part to ensure that viable alternative fuels will be developed and
commercialized. Electric vehicles receive disproportionately less
funding compared to other alternatives. They are not fully developed
on any dimension and will likely remain so without a balanced
national policy that supports all aspects of EV development and
infrastructure. While inherent risks are associated with sizable
investments in a nascent technology, a more tentative U.S. approach
carries another risk: investing the millions of dollars in battery
research and then losing early market share in mandated state
markets.
RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5
GAO is making no recommendations in this report.
AGENCY COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6
DOE took issue with some points in GAO's report but generally
concurred with its findings and conclusions. Points of disagreement
included estimates of likely vehicle costs and energy efficiency as
well as the effect of U.S. power plant emission regulations (see
appendix I). DOE also provided a number of technical and editorial
comments, which GAO incorporated into the report as appropriate.
INTRODUCTION
============================================================ Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1
In many respects, electric vehicles (EVs) have the potential to
reduce the transportation sector's adverse effect on environmental
quality and petroleum independence. Experts widely agree that EVs
could be a cleaner alternative to conventional internal combustion
engine vehicles (ICEVs), particularly in highly polluted and
congested urban areas where poor ambient air quality poses a serious
health threat. Electricity can be produced by many fuels, including
some that are nonpolluting, and renewable resources, such as
geothermal energy and hydropower. Moreover, the energy efficiency of
ICEVs is severely reduced in the typical stop-and-go traffic of urban
areas, whereas EVs are less hampered by such real world driving
conditions. Further, EVs are nearly silent when running, an
attribute that could greatly alleviate the noise pollution that
lowers the quality of life in many urban and suburban places.
Thus, EVs are playing a vital role in some regional responses to the
federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, which requires the states
to alleviate air pollution. Although EVs are not yet being widely
produced, there is already a legislative requirement in California
that in 1998 a total of 2 percent of vehicles marketed in that state
must be zero-emission vehicles, with percentage increases in
subsequent years up to 10 percent by 2003. This timetable has
understandably fueled a race among the world's largest automobile
manufacturers to become the first to introduce a viable EV in the
California marketplace.\1 Even greater incentives have recently
arisen as 11 northeastern and mid-Atlantic states have adopted or are
considering similar legislation.
The potential effect of these imposed mandates can be seen in table
1.1, which presents projected EV sales from 1998 through 2003 as
calculated by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) based on
total 1990 car and light truck sales. If all 11 states and the
District of Columbia adopt California-type legislation, 70,600 EVs
would be required in 1998; in 2003, when 10 percent of all new cars
in California must be zero-emission, that figure rises to 353,600.
Table 1.1
Projected EV Sales\a
Total new
cars
and light
trucks
registered in
State 1990 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
---------------- -------------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
California 1,221,800 24,400 24,400 24,400 61,100 61,100 122,20
0
Delaware 47,100 900 900 900 2,400 2,400 4,700
Maine 44,300 900 900 900 2,200 2,200 4,400
Maryland 290,000 5,800 5,800 5,800 14,500 14,500 29,000
Massachusetts 255,800 5,100 5,100 5,100 12,800 12,800 25,600
New Hampshire 55,800 1,100 1,100 1,100 2,800 2,800 5,600
New Jersey 405,600 8,100 8,100 8,100 20,300 20,300 40,600
New York 644,700 12,900 12,900 12,900 32,200 32,200 64,500
Pennsylvania 490,400 9,800 9,800 9,800 24,500 24,500 49,000
Rhode Island 37,400 700 700 700 1,900 1,900 3,700
Vermont 24,300 500 500 500 1,200 1,200 2,400
Washington, D.C. 19,200 400 400 400 1,000 1,000 1,900
================================================================================
Total 3,536,400 70,600 70,600 70,600 176,90 176,90 353,60
0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Based on 1990 new vehicle registrations and California Air
Resources Board yearly targeted zero-emission vehicles requirements.
By 1998-2000, zero-emission vehicles must constitute 2 percent of the
new car and light truck market; by 2001-2002, 5 percent of the
market; by 2003, 10 percent of the market.
Source: The Electric Power Research Institute.
Whether these EVs are merely supplied by the manufacturer (as the
current California legislation reads) or whether EVs are actually
purchased will ultimately be determined by consumers. But it is
generally believed that many barriers must be overcome before EVs are
a viable transportation option.
--------------------
\1 The mandate currently applies only to manufacturers with sales of
35,000 or more vehicles in California. Smaller manufacturers are
exempt but can produce EVs and sell zero-emission credits to larger
manufacturers, which can then use them in lieu of actual vehicles.
OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
METHODOLOGY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2
Uncertainties about the readiness of EV technology led the House
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology to ask us to undertake a
study of international EV development and commercialization programs.
The Committee was particularly interested in the aspects of other
industrialized nations' electric vehicle programs that might inform
current and proposed U.S. policies and programs to support electric
vehicles. Thus, our overall objective in this report was to examine
international efforts to identify and resolve barriers to widespread
EV use, so that the accumulated experience and lessons learned could
help the United States identify both electric vehicle goals that are
achievable and the means for achieving them. In consultation with
committee staff, we agreed on the following evaluation questions to
guide our work:
1. What are the main current barriers to the widespread introduction
of EVs?
2. What are the nature and extent of industrialized nations'
policies and programs to develop, produce, and promote EVs?
3. What are the likely effects of introducing EVs in a nation or
region in terms of costs to the individual, national energy savings,
and environmental effects?
We used several methods to obtain our primary data. These included
interviews with experts in the field of electric vehicles, literature
reviews of technical reports and government documents, field studies
in the seven foreign nations and the United States, and analysis of
data concerning the effect of electric vehicles on consumer costs,
energy consumption, and pollution.
INTERVIEWS WITH EXPERTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2.1
In order to understand the general issues that surround EV research
and development, we conducted interviews with government officials
who manage or otherwise influence EV programs. These typically
included officials in the ministries of environment, energy,
transportation, and industry. We also met with scientists,
researchers, and managers from private corporations with an interest
in EVs, including persons representing electric utility companies,
automobile manufacturers, and battery companies. We attended the
eleventh international electric vehicle symposium in Florence, Italy,
in September 1992, where we gathered additional information and
interviewed experts.
LITERATURE REVIEWS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2.2
We reviewed the technical literature on EVs, including articles
published in journals, government research reports, and proceedings
from EV conferences and symposia. From these studies, we identified
additional sources of relevant information on EVs. These often went
beyond technical issues surrounding the vehicle itself to include,
for example, market studies and infrastructure development. We also
gathered government documents relating to national and local EV
policies and programs.
FIELD STUDIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2.3
We conducted site visits in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Sweden,
Switzerland, and the United Kingdom, as well as in the United States.
Although EV activities exist in other nations, we determined that the
efforts in the seven foreign industrialized nations were among the
largest and most comprehensive and, therefore, could best inform
current understanding and activities in the United States. We also
identified several supranational organizations that play an active
role in EV development. The Association Europeenne des Vehicules
Electriques Routiers (AVERE) supports efforts to use electric road
vehicles throughout Europe. The European Association of Cities
Interested in Electric Vehicles (CITELEC) is an association of
European cities interested in promoting EVs in urban areas. The
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the
International Energy Association (IEA) continue to support research
and collect information in the area. Whenever possible, we visited
active EV production and demonstration sites and reviewed official
documents provided by a nation's officials.
Before making each site visit, we contacted staff working in
Washington, D.C., embassies of these nations in order to obtain the
names of agencies and staff responsible for EV programs. When we
notified them of our impending visit, they often provided additional
contacts or sources of information about public and private EV
programs. The goal of the international site visits was to obtain a
better understanding of environmental, energy, transportation, and
industrial policies and programs abroad, including the extent of
interagency and international cooperation and coordination regarding
EVs.
DATA ANALYSIS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2.4
In several instances, we were able to obtain data that helped answer
questions regarding the potential effect of introducing EVs: in
particular, (1) the likely costs to individuals of owning and
operating EVs in different nations, (2) the likely effects of
introducing EVs on a nation's energy savings, (3) the likely effects
of introducing EVs on a nation's dependence on imported petroleum,
and (4) the likely effects of introducing EVs on a nation's air
pollution environment. The major sources of information we used were
government documents, published academic and government research
articles, and interviews with experts.
With respect to cost, we considered likely purchase prices in both
the near term and the more distant future, as well as costs to
operate and maintain an EV. To do this, we reanalyzed and
synthesized data from three distinct sources: the first proposed
likely vehicle costs as anticipated by a major automobile
manufacturer, the second projected likely costs of different EV
batteries, and the third presented electricity and gasoline costs in
the nations under study. Our analysis of energy savings to be gained
by introducing EVs compared the energy use of an EV in the form of
electricity to the energy use of a comparable ICEV in the form of
petroleum. We posited likely reductions in imported petroleum for
the eight nations under study, based on their reliance on imported
petroleum and the proportion of the nation's electricity generated by
oil. We analyzed environmental effects as a function of each
nation's electricity generation mix: coal, oil, gas, hydropower,
geothermal power, and nuclear power. We also considered a number of
studies of the potential environmental effects of introducing EVs
into specific regions that vary in terms of the fuel used to generate
electricity. For example, we analyzed published statistics on each
nation's electricity generation sources and oil imports to infer the
likely effects of EVs on pollution reduction and energy independence.
We gathered our program data between September 1992 and July 1994 and
updated our information wherever possible through December 1994, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
LIMITATIONS OF OUR STUDY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:3
Given the proprietary nature of many EV research efforts, we were not
always able to obtain information on all aspects of a program. For
example, we cannot present cost estimates for all prototypes nor can
we discuss the number of planned or actual vehicles produced for some
programs. For similar reasons, we were not able to verify
independently all the information we obtained on these proprietary
efforts. Currently quoted initial purchase prices and production
costs vary so widely as to make them essentially meaningless for
either comparative or predictive purposes. To maximize the
usefulness of our report, we present such information only where it
was provided and when we were reasonably confident of its accuracy.
Although this report can contribute to a discussion of the broad
issues surrounding EVs, many aspects of these issues are sufficiently
complex that a full understanding cannot be achieved in any one
report. For example, we do not consider the potential effect of
state and federal tax losses resulting from reduced gasoline sales
nor do we make projections of the economic effect of shifting demands
from the petroleum industry to the electricity industry. We do not
compare electric vehicles to other alternatively fueled vehicles.
The multifaceted nature of this study led us to use a broad,
descriptive approach to present the technical and programmatic
aspects of introducing a widespread system of EVs. Yet, the field of
electric vehicles is constantly changing, and although we include
recent developments wherever possible, the fast pace of EV
development should be considered when using the information contained
in this report.
ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:4
In chapter 2, we discuss current barriers to widespread EV use. In
chapter 3, we describe what we learned about the policies and
programs that the United States and other nations use to develop,
produce, and promote EVs. In chapter 4, we consider the likely
economic, energy, and environmental effects of introducing EVs into a
nation or region. Chapter 5 contains our general summary and
conclusions.
CURRENT BARRIERS TO THE WIDESPREAD
USE OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES
============================================================ Chapter 2
We identified five major activities that must be completed before EVs
become a viable transportation option: overcoming limitations of
battery technology, building EV infrastructure, ensuring EV safety,
identifying and developing a market, and reducing purchase costs. In
this chapter, we present major issues and questions that have been
identified for each of them.
CURRENT LIMITATIONS OF EV
BATTERIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1
Limitations in the range, power, recharging capabilities, and life of
batteries remain the largest technical obstacles for the
commercialization of EVs.\1 The typical range of prototype and
limited production EVs is approximately 60 to 150 miles on a single
battery charge but depends greatly on variations in driving speed and
the use of heating and air conditioning. However, most of the EVs
that are commercially available have substantially lower ranges--from
30 to 50 miles under city driving conditions.
Current EV batteries are technically unable to store enough energy in
a unit of reasonable size and weight. Their size--as large as 20
cubic feet--makes them hard to fit into a vehicle without severely
limiting cargo or passenger space, and their weight--as much as 2,800
lbs for a one-ton cargo van--requires ample energy to accelerate the
vehicle. Thus, increasing the energy held in the battery without
substantially increasing its weight and volume is a significant
challenge that must be met before the range and sustainable power of
EVs can compete with those of conventional ICEVs.
A battery's range relates directly to its specific energy, the ratio
of its energy capacity to its weight, usually expressed in watt hours
per kilogram (Wh/kg). Range is also affected by a battery's energy
density, the ratio of its energy capacity to its volume, usually
expressed in watt hours per liter (Wh/l).
The specific energy of gasoline is more than 350 times, and its
energy density about 120 times, that of a lead acid battery. For
example, gas provides 10,000 units of energy (watt hours) per
kilogram while the most efficient electrochemical cell provides 81
units of energy per kilogram--a proportion of 123 to 1. Traveling
100 miles in the General Motors Impact would require 5.67 liters of
gasoline weighing 10 lbs and containing 50.1 kilowatt hours of energy
or 880 lbs of a lead acid battery occupying 172 liters (or 6 cubic
feet) of space and containing 13.6 kilowatt hours of energy.\2
However, an electric motor is three to four times more efficient than
the internal combustion engine, so the system can make better use of
the smaller amounts of energy onboard in terms of actual power
output.\3
Yet, even under the best development scenarios, EVs may always be
inferior to ICEVs in specific energy and energy density. That is,
they will require more space and more weight to store energy.
Department of Energy (DOE) goals for maximum battery volume for a
lightweight, aerodynamic van that could travel 75 to 100 miles
between charges range from 400 to 550 liters (14 to 20 cubic feet)
and for maximum battery weight from about 970 lbs to 1,550 lbs,
depending on battery type.\4
EVs currently require a long time to recharge batteries, especially
when compared to the 5-minute refueling of ICEVs. Most recharging
systems take at least 5 to 7 hours to recharge, using standard 120 or
220 volt outlets. A "quick" recharge system that takes 6 to 12
minutes has been developed, but the safety of using such high-powered
systems is still uncertain.
Today's EV batteries can be recharged a finite number of times.
Nickel cadmium and nickel iron batteries can be expected to tolerate
2,000 recharges, whereas sodium sulfur and lead acid batteries last
for about 500 cycles. For example, sodium sulfur batteries currently
require replacement as often as every 1-1/2 years at estimated costs
of $60,000 to $80,000.
As table 2.1 indicates, each battery type has its individual positive
and negative attributes. For example, lead acid's low price,
abundant raw materials, and well-established production and recycling
technology are offset by its less than desirable range, service life,
and acceleration power. The nickel cadmium battery has a high power
ratio for acceleration and a long cycle life that would reduce the
high cost of repeatedly replacing worn batteries. However, both
nickel and cadmium are expensive, thus making the initial cost of the
battery relatively high. Moreover, cadmium is quite toxic, and
nickel cadmium battery recycling facilities have not been
established.
Table 2.1
Advantages and Disadvantages of Current
EV Batteries
Type Advantage Disadvantage
------------------------- ------------------------- --------------------------
Lead acid Low price Low specific energy and
Based on established energy density increases
technology weight and volume and
Abundant raw materials decreases range
Adequate cycle life Power decreases as battery
Maintenance free, sealed discharges
versions available Decreased capacity at low
Recycling system atmospheric temperatures
Limited possibility of
fast charging
Nickel cadmium High cycle life Expensive
High power even after Cadmium is rare and highly
partial discharge toxic
Very good performance at Poor chargeability at high
low atmospheric atmospheric temperatures
temperatures Charging memory effect can
Fast charge technology systematically reduce
developed capacity
No recycling system
Nickel metal hydrides Very high specific energy Expensive
and energy density Use of rare metals in some
decreases weight and instances
volume and increases Very sensitive to high
range temperatures (thermal
High power management required)
Good performance at low No recycling system
atmospheric temperatures
Sodium sulfur, Very high specific energy Expensive
sodium nickel chloride and energy density Premature failures and
decreases weight and self-discharges
volume and increases Must maintain permanently
range high temperatures
High power High internal resistance
Abundant raw materials reduces specific power
Safety issues regarding
chemical composition and
high temperatures
No recycling system
Metal air High specific energy Currently high cost
decreases weight and Hydrogen build up with
increases range overcharge
Consistently high power Poor performance at low
Fast mechanical recharge temperatures
High safety potential Low cell efficiency
Manufacturing ease Requires carbon dioxide
Abundant and low-cost raw scrubber
materials
Ambient temperature High specific energy Carbon version expensive
lithium decreases weight and Solid version has low
increases range power at room temperature
High power Questionable safety of
Abundant lithium supply recharge
Low maintenance Limitations in quick
charging
No recycling system
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The nickel metal hydride battery appears promising, but battery
development has only recently reached the full-system level and its
capability in an integrated cell system is currently being evaluated.
The sodium sulfur battery has relatively high energy and power ratios
for maximum range and acceleration, yet it requires a constant
maintenance temperature of 540\o to 600\o Fahrenheit and its active
ingredients are both corrosive and explosive.\5 Metal air batteries
have the potential for very high performance and quick
rechargeability. These batteries create energy by reacting a metal
(aluminum, zinc, or iron) with atmospheric oxygen. The safety and
environmental benefits of such a system are clear, but their
successful development is very uncertain. The lithium battery is
considered by experts to be the best candidate to meet the long-term
goals of the U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC) from both
technical and cost viewpoints. Still, much research and development
are required to make the lithium battery a viable power source for
EVs. Most experts do not anticipate this development before 2010.
--------------------
\1 Cost is also considered a technical obstacle. We address cost
separately in the final section of this chapter and again in chapter
4.
\2 See R. J. Nichols, "The United States Advanced Battery
Consortium: Making Longer Life Batteries Affordable," and J.
Dabels, "Environmental Requirements and the Impact Prototype
Vehicle," in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,
The Urban Electric Vehicle: Policy Options, Technology Trends, and
Market Prospects (Paris, France: 1992), and J. P. Cornu,
"Nickel-Cadmium, a Major Advantage for Cities," in EVS-11 Florence:
The 11th International Electric Vehicle Symposium (Florence, Italy:
1992).
\3 The overall fuel efficiency--from primary energy extraction
through vehicle end use--is projected to be about 10 percent for
gasoline ICEVs and 14-20 percent for EVs in 2001. J. J. Brogan and
S. R. Venkateswaran, "Diverse Choices for Electric and Hybrid Motor
Vehicles: Implications for National Planners," in The Urban Electric
Vehicle.
\4 U.S. Department of Energy, Mission Directed Goals for Electric
Vehicle Battery Research and Development (Washington, D.C.: 1987).
\5 The molten sodium and sulfur are capable of generating large
quantities of heat, explosive and toxic gases, and other caustic
chemical compounds. Two fires have occurred when the thermal
management system failed as a battery was being heated prior to
shipping or installation in a vehicle. The extent to which such a
hazard could occur under real operating conditions is not currently
known. Current U.S. regulations consider both liquid sodium and
sulfur as hazardous cargo and their transport currently requires
special exemptions.
CURRENT EV INFRASTRUCTURE
BARRIERS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2
The second barrier to widespread EV use that we identified is
infrastructure development and standardization. Some proponents of
EVs argue that infrastructure will develop smoothly as EVs are
marketed. However, others point to the need to convince potential
customers that EVs will not impose major operating and travel
inconveniences. We see it as a major barrier because so many issues
remain unresolved concerning the various components of EV
infrastructure and implementing them will require ample time,
attention, and effort. These include recharging equipment;
residential, commercial, and public charging facilities; maintenance,
service, and battery recycling; and electricity service and supply.
RECHARGING EQUIPMENT
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.1
Current recharging technology includes traditional plug-in systems
and an innovative inductive charger. The plug-in systems vary in the
type of plug they employ and the level of charge they can transmit
(120 volts, 240 volts, or 480-plus volts). Recharging equipment may
be permanently attached to the vehicle, permanently attached to the
area where the vehicle is typically parked, or completely removable
to either stay behind or travel with the vehicle. The inductive
charger uses a paddle-shaped inductive coupler to transfer
electricity to an EV's charging port by means of a magnetic
induction. One benefit of inductive charging is that it can be
accomplished with fewer safety concerns in wet weather. Regardless
of the technology used to recharge EVs, key issues in developing
connector technology include whether or not to standardize plugs and
outlets, as well as establishing the environmental ruggedness,
safety, and human factors considerations of recharging.
CHARGING FACILITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.2
EVs will most likely need the ability to refuel away from home at
retail or commercial charging stations, especially to achieve
consumer acceptance. Charging stations will probably be configured
one of two ways--that is, slow and fast--depending on the rate of
recharge and consequent voltages involved. Low-voltage (120 to 240
volts) charging stations will be much the same as the home charging
station and will probably use the battery-charging electronics
already on board the EV. Standard charging should also be available
and practical in parking lots or garages where multiple-hour parking
is typical. (See figure 2.1.) Key issues for low-voltage stations
include equipment safety and reliability, low capital and maintenance
costs to encourage widespread installation, and establishing
convenient and accurate methods of revenue collection.
Figure 2.1: Charging Station
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Government officials in
Osaka, Japan, insert the EVOC
identification card to access
the recharging cord. The
charging connector has an
electronic sensor to
automatically activate the
correct charging voltage.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Fast charging stations represent a different challenge. According to
recent claims, some batteries can now receive a 40-percent recharge
(equivalent to 50 to 90 miles of range extension) in 6 to 12 minutes.
Such rapid recharging rates will require at least 480-plus volts of
power. Primarily for safety reasons, the electronics will most
likely not be in the vehicle, thus increasing capital and operating
costs for charging stations. It is not now known how different
battery types will react to high-energy charging. For example, rapid
recharging of some batteries may cause overheating, emission of
gases, or shortened lifetimes. Without answers to these questions,
the technology to monitor and deliver rapid recharging cannot be
established. Nor is it known whether additional rapid recharge
monitoring or control equipment will be needed on board the vehicle
and how that might affect cost, weight, and range.
EVs use large amounts of electricity from the outlet and their
batteries produce large amounts of electrochemical energy, both of
which could have dangerous health and safety effects. Thus, research
must demonstrate that EVs and recharging equipment are effectively
benign electrically and electrochemically in any areas in which they
are likely to operate. Such demonstration would include testing for
power quality and electromagnetic field effects, as well as
compliance with both electric and building codes.
MAINTENANCE, SERVICE, AND
RECYCLING
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.3
The maintenance and service--both routine and emergency--of EVs may
pose unique circumstances, considering that most advanced EV
batteries contain large amounts of electrochemical energy captured in
highly toxic and reactive substances. For similar reasons, their
ultimate effect on the environment throughout their life cycles has
yet to be determined. The type and amount of infrastructure that
would be required to recycle these large batteries is a serious
outstanding concern. Also not yet considered is the environmental
effect of additional radioactive waste if EVs are powered by nuclear
power plants.
ELECTRICITY SERVICE AND
SUPPLY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.4
Electric utilities can justify expansion and achieve more efficient
use of current capacity if substantial numbers of EVs recharge during
off-peak hours. Understandably, then, they have exhibited marked
interest in EV developments. Utility roles in consumer
familiarization and education could contribute substantially to the
public acceptance of EVs. Toward this end, electricity utilities are
striving to determine the best mechanism for introducing them.
Currently, utilities are the primary users of EVs with the dual
intention of assessing vehicle and infrastructure performance and
promoting the viability of EVs to their customers.
In the future, utilities may provide incentives to speed EV
acceptance by consumers. These will almost certainly include lower
residential night rates if EVs acquire a sizable market. Utilities
are also considering the leasing of vehicles or batteries to private
citizens, as well as possible installation, ownership, and operation
of charging, servicing, and recycling stations. Reports from EPRI
suggest that the extent to which utilities provide such incentives
will probably depend, at least in part, on whether state and federal
regulators allow them to recover costs associated with
utility-sponsored EV subsidies or programs.
The minimal number of EVs expected in the near future is not
considered likely to create excessive burdens on utility loads.
Utility companies plan to provide customers with incentives and
devices to manage their recharging activities in ways that promote
efficient use of current capacity. That is, utilities want the bulk
of standard recharging to be done during off-peak periods.
Fast charging, however, represents a significant utility load
management challenge as it is designed to be used primarily during
daytime commercial hours. Several practical concerns can be raised
about fast-charging effects on utility load management and systems.
For example, storage facilities may be needed at service stations to
manage large short-duration demand surges (for example, load leveling
batteries that store excess nighttime electricity). The total
utility peak power requirements that will be needed to recharge a
reasonable number of vehicles and how this might vary over the course
of the day, season, and year have yet to be determined. Even very
basic questions remain unanswered, such as the number of charging
stations needed now and in the future.
SAFETY CONSIDERATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3
EVs present several unique hazards that are not present or do not
occur to the same degree in ICEVs. Moreover, ICEVs have benefitted
from decades of development and refinement, whereas EVs are
developmentally still a new technology. We previously noted hazards
pertaining to battery recharging and the general safety concerns
relating to battery recycling in our discussion of infrastructure
supports. The special hazards associated with EVs can be classified
into one of two main types: (1) electrical, chemical, and thermal
hazards and (2) mechanical and operational hazards.\6
--------------------
\6 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Environmental, Health, and
Safety Issues of Sodium-Sulfur Batteries for Electric and Hybrid
Vehicles, vol. 4, In-Vehicle Safety (Golden, Colo.: November 1992).
ELECTRICAL, CHEMICAL, AND
THERMAL HAZARDS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3.1
All EV batteries present some safety hazards. Of the major battery
types, the sodium sulfur battery appears to present the most serious
hazard and thus receives more attention and concern. The typical
sodium sulfur battery operates at between 200 and 300 volts. In
contrast to the typical 12-volt ICEV starter battery, this poses a
potentially lethal shock hazard, particularly during charging and
maintenance and in the event of a severe collision. A related
electrochemical hazard is that of fire resulting from
short-circuiting, overheating, or cell rupture. Short-circuiting
could be caused by a poor connection during charging or operation as
well as the failure of connectors or damage to the battery pack
during collision. Overheating might result from overcharging, cell
failure, or a failure of the thermal management system. Cell
ruptures can be caused by an overvoltage supplied to a cell during
charging, which could rupture the ceramic electrolyte and allow the
sodium and sulfur to mix directly. Through a variety of potential
reactions, the molten sodium and sulfur are capable of generating
large quantities of heat, explosive and toxic gases, and other
caustic chemical compounds.
Maintaining optimal battery temperature requires a sophisticated
thermal management system that provides initial heatup of the
battery, controls waste heat buildup, and insulates the system. Two
fires recently occurred in sodium sulfur batteries when the thermal
management system failed as the batteries were being heated.
Fortunately, neither battery was actually in a vehicle; one fire took
place at the battery manufacturing plant and the other at the vehicle
production plant. The battery manufacturer recognized the potential
problems and stopped all scheduled deliveries and is currently
working to improve the thermal management system. However, the
problem is potentially serious, and the extent to which this
particular failure could occur in real-world operating conditions is
not known. In June 1994, Ford reported to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) that two fires had occurred in
the sodium sulfur batteries that power their EV vans. As a result,
Ford has ordered all the vans parked until the cause of the fire can
be determined.
MECHANICAL AND OPERATIONAL
HAZARDS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3.2
The replacement of the typical internal combustion engine with an
electric propulsion system has several important mechanical and
operational ramifications. For example, some EVs may not have the
acceleration performance needed to merge effectively onto a highway
at high speeds. However, since most EVs are generally considered to
be within the range of performance of today's ICEVs, we do not
consider performance deficits to be a major safety concern at this
time.
Vehicle accessories, such as windshield wipers, defoggers, lights,
and indicators, are driven by electricity in both ICEVs and EVs. If
an ICEV runs out of fuel, these accessories continue to function; if
an EV runs out of electricity, it must have a secondary source of
electricity to drive accessories. Most EVs have such a source.
However, some designs run accessories off the primary, propulsion
battery.
From a safety perspective, the conversion of an ICEV to an EV can add
substantial mass to a vehicle; batteries can weigh as much as a
fourth to half of the total unladen vehicle weight. This added
weight could affect a converted EV's maneuverability as well as
increase its inertial force, which would hamper its ability to make
sudden stops or avoid a collision. Some EV batteries are placed
lengthwise under the car. This configuration is considered less of a
safety concern than others in which the batteries are placed in the
trunk or behind the rear seat of cars or on the cargo floor of vans.
This is because excessive movement of the battery pack into the
passenger compartment could be fatal in the event of a collision.
The effect of converting ICEVs to EVs on crashworthiness has not been
thoroughly examined.
Future EVs will likely be purpose-built--rather than converted from
ICEVs--using lightweight, nonpropulsion components to increase range.
It is possible that these lighter-weight components will lower an
EV's crash energy management capacity. That is, the vehicle will be
less able to absorb and direct the energy of a collision. A lower
capacity (which is not necessarily related to vehicle weight alone)
would result in more deformation of the vehicle and less protection
of the occupants. In the early 1980's, DOE conducted some crash
testing of two EVs: one designed with some lighter-weight components
(ETV-1) and the other with a fiber-reinforced plastic for maximum
strength-to-weight ratio (ETV-2). ETV-1 was tested on a "mule"
vehicle derived from a 1977 Chrysler Omni-Horizon; ETV-2 was tested
on a half-scale model. Both were reported to demonstrate
crashworthiness.
In 1993, NHTSA crash tested two converted EVs equipped with lead acid
batteries located in both the front and rear vehicle compartments.
In both 30 mph frontal crashes, the front batteries sustained
substantial damage. One EV leaked 10.4 liters of electrolyte; the
other leaked 17.7 liters of electrolyte. Several electrical arcs
were observed under the hood of one vehicle during the crash. In
November 1994, NHTSA tested the crashworthiness of five batteries
that were not in vehicles, and it plans to crash test a Chevy S-10
converted pick-up truck in December 1994. Final results were not
available for inclusion in this report.
Swiss manufacturers are conducting extensive EV safety research on
lightweight vehicles.\7 The Swiss effort to design crashworthy EVs is
quite different from conventional approaches. Current efforts to
improve crashworthiness of ICEVs focus on increasing the energy
absorption potential of vehicles while ensuring passenger
protection--for example, by incorporating "crumple zones" into the
front hood, nonpenetrable passenger zones, and passenger restraint
systems that decelerate the occupant within established injury
tolerance limits.
Swiss officials believe that the EV of the future will incorporate
many lightweight components and, thus, requires a different approach
to crashworthiness to compensate for its low mass and the reduced
length of its car front. The Swiss are designing very rigid,
"nondeformable" EV car bodies made of high-strength, lightweight
composite materials such as fiberglass and resins. Following an
impact, the stiffness of these materials reduces the ability of the
EV's outer structure to absorb energy. The force is therefore
transferred to the passenger compartment, which decelerates at a much
higher rate than is common in an ICEV. This implies that the
occupants will need a much larger space in which to move forward and
then backward without hitting the dashboard or windshield. Passenger
restraint systems will require modifications, and steering column
airbags may be a necessity.
The Swiss have conducted several crash tests with lightweight EVs
reinforced in various ways. (See figure 2.2.) These include frontal
collisions with a solid wall at a top speed of 25 mph, frontal
collisions at a speed of 32 mph with an Audi 100 weighing twice as
much and traveling at 16 mph, and side collisions with stationary
barriers at 31 mph. Although we were told that data were collected
on both vehicle damage and injury to a dummy in the driver's
position, we were unable to obtain data that were comparable to U.S.
crashworthiness standards and therefore cannot speak at all to the
crashworthiness of such vehicles.\8 Although more tests are needed to
demonstrate EV crashworthiness, the existence of this research
certainly shows the feasibility of conducting early safety
assessments of EVs in order to improve designs for crashworthiness.
Figure 2.2: Crash Testing
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Swiss manufacturers
crash test small, lightweight
EVs such as the one pictured
here. Results are used to
improve designs for safety and
crashworthiness.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
In the United States, the NHTSA granted exemptions for four 1989
Chrysler TEVans that were converted from Dodge Caravans and Plymouth
Voyagers. The ICEV versions complied with all standards that apply
to multipurpose passenger vehicles; however, the manufacturer argued,
and NHTSA agreed, that once the vehicles were converted to battery
power, certain standards were no longer relevant. These included
regulations governing the transmission, braking system, seating
systems, seat belt assembly anchorages, windshield mounting,
windshield zone intrusion, and fuel system integrity. Again in
September 1992, NHTSA granted 2-year exemptions for 1991-94 TEVans on
some of but not all these regulations.
Whether these or any future exemptions might compromise vehicle
integrity or passenger safety is uncertain without systematic
testing. EVs and ICEVs are dissimilar on many dimensions. In all
likelihood, new or revised regulations will be necessary to ensure EV
crashworthiness. For example, fasteners and enclosures for batteries
are likely to require special attention to minimize the hazards and
risks associated with high voltages and reactive chemicals. In
September 1994, NHTSA requested public comments on safety issues
surrounding EV fuel systems, such as battery shock hazards and
electrolyte spillage. NHTSA had previously published an advanced
notice of proposed rule making on these issues in 1991. After
reviewing the 46 public comments, NHTSA had concluded that it was
premature to initiate rulemaking for EV safety standards at that
time.
A decision on the current initiative will probably not be made until
1995. The experts we interviewed universally stated that EVs can be
designed to meet current U.S. vehicle safety standards and thus
should not be granted special exemptions from vehicle crashworthiness
standards.
--------------------
\7 R. Kaeser, Institute for Lightweight Structures, Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology, "Safety Potential of Urban Electric Vehicles
in Collisions," in The Urban Electric Vehicle: Policy Options,
Technology Trends, and Market Prospects (Paris, France: 1992).
\8 One Swiss manufacturer, Horlacher, Inc., is reportedly developing
a light cargo van to meet U.S. crash-test standards.
UNCERTAIN MARKET POTENTIAL
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:4
Efforts to forecast potential EV markets continue to multiply and
expand as the California 1998 deadline nears. Two major approaches
have been tried and each reaches widely different conclusions. In
this section, we discuss the methods used to assess the private EV
market, summarize major findings from these market studies, and
consider the characteristics of commercial and government fleets in
terms of potential EV penetration.
Technical constraint studies have looked at how current limitations
in EV technology (for example, short range and long recharge times)
fashion the EV market and have found a large potential market for
EVs. Deshpande estimated that 60 percent of U.S. households drive
fewer than 96 miles on 348 days of the year, a range within the
limits of current EV technology.\9
Nesbitt and colleagues further constrained this estimate by adding
the assumption that only home owners were likely to have a safe and
reliable recharging site for an EV.\10 They also included only
households with two or more cars and only those whose members drive
at least one car fewer than 70 miles per day (which would leave a
"range buffer" for emergencies). They found that 28 million
households in the United States could substitute an EV for one of the
vehicles held by their household. Thus, even the most conservative
technical constraint study concludes that a substantial percentage of
U.S. households could find an EV useful in their daily travels.
Opponents of EVs often counter the promising market potentials
derived from technical constraint studies with estimates of the
nature and extent of the EV market based on consumer preferences.
Market researchers argue that because consumers will not be willing
to pay more for an EV that forfeits the unlimited driving range and
fast refueling of ICEVs, the EV market will be considerably smaller
than even the most conservative estimate of technical constraint
studies. The results of two recent consumer surveys support such
claims.
In a 1993 automotive consumer profile study, only 6 percent of 4,512
respondents indicated they definitely would consider purchasing an EV
with a stated range of 100 miles and a top speed of 65 mph for their
next car purchase.\11 The median price respondents expected to pay
for an EV with a 100-mile range and top speed of 65 mph was
$14,200--$2,200 less than the median price they expected to pay for a
new ICEV. Only 10 percent of respondents expected to pay between
$20,000 and $24,999 for an electric four-door sedan. While no
high-performance electric four-door sedans are on the market, the
Japanese Cedric and Gloria sedans have anticipated near-term prices
of between $179,000 and $269,000, or more than ten times the cost
consumers would be willing to pay. The study authors concluded
further that early EV purchasers will likely be younger, more
educated, and higher paid and more likely to own a foreign-made
vehicle than the average car owner.
In another survey that assessed consumers' knowledge, opinions, and
attitudes about EVs, three factors emerged as important purchasing
considerations: initial cost, performance and range, and recharging
convenience.\12 The initial cost of an EV was the most frequently
cited purchase consideration. Two out of five consumers said that
total ownership costs would have to be 30 cents or less per
mile--compared to stated ownership costs of 33.5 cents per mile for a
four-door gasoline-powered sedan--before they would consider
purchasing an electric four-door sedan. Only 8 percent would be
willing to pay the 40 cents or more per mile that EVs could cost in
the near to midterm. Assuming that some EV costs (such as
maintenance) would be lower and some incentives would be applied
(such as reduced license and registration fees), Automotive News
calculates that the EV market price underlying a consumer response of
28.5 cents per mile was $11,900, or $500 more than a 1993 Ford Escort
four-door hatchback. While it is likely that most automobile
consumers do not think in terms of costs per mile when considering
various alternative automobiles, this finding is nonetheless
discouraging from a market perspective.
With respect to performance, the median expectation for an EV's range
was 186 miles on a single battery charge, with 23 percent stating
that EVs should at least match an ICEV's range of 300 miles.\13
Finally, the convenience of recharging appears crucial to the EV
market: 76 percent of respondents said that they would not buy an EV
until quick recharging stations became widely and publicly available.
We believe that neither the relatively optimistic market estimates
reported by technical constraint studies nor the relatively
pessimistic market estimates reported by consumer preference studies
provide much insight into the likely size and characteristics of the
near-term EV market. Technical constraint studies are only the first
step in pinpointing the relatively small "niche" markets commonly
associated with new technologies. Consumer preference studies about
such an unfamiliar technology as EVs probably measure little more
than consumers' underlying uncertainties about the reliability and
stability of EV technology itself and the relative importance of
certain attributes of current ICEV technology that have previously
received little consideration (for example, the value of a 300-mile
range on a single tank of gas).
Better identification of potential EV markets will probably require
some combination of both methods: sampling consumers who meet the
technical constraint assumptions and then modeling those consumers'
transportation needs and automobile purchase decisions to determine
who will be likely to purchase an EV and why. Studies that use this
approach generally conclude that consumers know relatively little
about EV technology.\14 Using such an approach, Turrentine and
colleagues found that consumers who had no previous experience with
EVs reported that a test drive greatly improved their opinions about
EVs. Travel logs of daily driving habits coupled with a simulation
game demonstrated how participants can make knowledgeable tradeoffs
to accommodate EVs into their daily schedules. Thus, the development
of information and the accumulation of experience are two key
processes underlying the emergence of a private EV market. Until EVs
have been integrated--at least at some basic level--into mainstream
traffic and the public has become familiarized with their different
performance characteristics, a sizable personal consumer EV market is
not likely.
Limited range and long recharging times may be significant drawbacks
for personally owned EVs but not necessarily for commercial and
government-owned EVs. The average daily range of most commercial and
government fleets is well within the capability of current battery
technology. For example, Cohen and Commoner report that the 1988
average daily mileage of federal government light-duty vehicles
ranged from 25 to 50 miles.\15
Mader and Bevilaqua surveyed commercial fleet operators representing
50 percent of the total U.S. market, and they determined that EVs
with a 90-mile range could replace up to 283,000, or 80 percent, of
fleet vans.\16 Most commercial and government fleets are centrally
garaged overnight so that recharging would be both convenient and
inexpensive. The limitation of high initial costs remains, but these
costs can be depreciated over a shorter interval than private
consumer costs. Moreover, from an environmental perspective,
replacing gasoline-powered delivery and service vehicles with EVs
would reduce the amount of pollution emitted by these vehicles as
they stand idle in traffic or while making deliveries.
In Japan, the national government estimates that 5 percent of the 72
million vehicles expected to be in operation in 2000 would be
replaceable by EVs. Light trucks and vans are predicted to
constitute most of these vehicles with as much as 25 percent
replaceable by EVs; EVs are expected to replace only 1 percent of
passenger cars. Estimates from the Ministry of Environment in France
suggest that replacing 10 percent of vehicles in that country with
EVs would be an ambitious effort. The goal in Germany is to have 1
million EVs in operation by 2003, or 2 percent to 3 percent of the
total vehicle inventory.
--------------------
\9 G. K. Deshpande, "Development of Driving Schedules for Advanced
Vehicle Assessment," SAE Technical Paper Series 840360, Society of
Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, Pa., 1984.
\10 K. Nesbitt, K. Kurani, and M. DeLuchi, "Home Recharging and
the Household Electric Vehicle Market: A Constraints Analysis,"
Transportation Research Record (1992). In Nesbitt's model, the
constraints analysis defines the potential market to be surveyed
about attitudes and beliefs surrounding the purchase of EVs.
\11 J. D. Power and Associates, Automotive Consumer Profile Study,
The Power Report (May 1993).
\12 Based on a national consumer and public opinion telephone survey
conducted by Cambridge Reports/Research International in April 1993.
Survey respondents (n = 1,250) were selected to represent the U.S.
population 18 years old or older. See Automotive News, June 7, 1993,
p. 1.
\13 Despite their assertion that an EV should match an ICEV's range,
other studies have demonstrated that consumers often do not actually
know the range of their current ICEV.
\14 For example, see T. Turrentine et al., "Household Decision
Behavior and Demand for Limited Range Vehicles: Results of PIREG, a
Diary Based, Interview Game for the Evaluation of the Electric
Vehicle Market," Institute of Transportation Studies, University of
California, Davis, Calif., 1992.
\15 M. Cohen and B. Commoner, "How Government Purchase Programs Can
Get Electric Vehicles on the Road," Center for the Biology of Natural
Systems, Queens College, City University of New York, Flushing, New
York, 1993.
\16 G. H. Mader and O. Bevilaqua, "Strategies for EV
Commercialization," Electric Vehicle Development Corp., Cupertino,
Calif., 1989.
HIGH INITIAL PURCHASE PRICES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:5
The development-through-production cycle of a successful new
technological commodity is typically characterized by economies of
scale and economies of learning. Economies of scale are factors that
enable a company or industry to produce large volumes of goods at
lower prices than small volumes. These economies arise as production
volume for a given time period increases--a situation that is usually
the outcome of production and design standardization or high market
demand or both.
Three types of factors may affect economies of scale: (1) fixed cost
factors, (2) factors of external economies, and (3) technological
factors.\17 With respect to EVs, economies of scale would arise and
prices would be reduced as (1) production startup costs and research
and development costs are diffused over more vehicles, (2)
manufacturers obtain lower prices on larger volumes of parts and
supplies, and (3) factory and personnel efficiency are maximized.
For example, in interviews with Swiss manufacturers of EVs composed
of plastic resin composite materials, we learned that the molds used
to form the body of the EV are very expensive. Thus, the more EV
bodies that are molded, the greater the diffusion of the original
cost of the mold and, ultimately, the lower the cost to the consumer
of the finished EV. With respect to research and development costs,
many of today's new EV models are presumed to subsume substantial
research and development costs into their prices: a General Motors
Impact is currently priced at more than $500,000, but its ultimate
price is expected to be about $25,000.
EV prices may also be affected by economies from learning or cost
reductions as cumulative output increases. That is, as the total
number of units a firm manufactures increases, the number of direct
labor hours required to produce a single unit decreases at a uniform
rate.\18 Learning economies are the result of gains in knowledge
about the flexibility and constraints of the manufacturing process
itself. In the Swiss example, as more EV bodies are molded, the
manufacturer gains experience in how long the process takes, thus
avoiding bottlenecks in the manufacturing process. Learning
economies arise only with time and experience, and they can be a
primary factor in competitively pricing a product. For this reason,
a firm that acquires an early market share (cumulative volume) of a
new commodity is often at a significant advantage relative to its
competitors.
The automobile industry has historically achieved cost reductions as
a result of these factors. A price comparison, using 1989 dollars,
is illustrative. In 1907, when a total of 43,000 passenger cars were
produced, their average wholesale price was $30,000; in 1914, when
550,000 cars were built, that price dropped to $10,000; in 1917, when
annual production reached 1,750,000, the price stabilized at
$5,500.\19
Currently quoted initial purchase prices and production costs for EVs
vary so widely as to make them essentially meaningless for either
comparative or predictive purposes. In general terms, today's EVs
cost two to three times more than comparable ICEVs; future costs are
expected to be about 20 percent higher.
Because vehicle and battery technology are still under development
and most EVs are constructed by hand, high cost is the largest
obstacle for consumers willing to purchase EVs. EV designs and
production technology will continue to evolve over the next few
decades. Neither standardization (design or production) nor high
market demand has been achieved. This implies that EV production and
price will most likely follow the path of other technology-intensive
commodities, such as semiconductors and integrated circuits, which
are characterized by significant economies of scale and learning.
--------------------
\17 T. R. Howell et al., The Microelectronics Race: The Impact of
Government Policy on International Competition (London: Westview
Press, 1988).
\18 Frank J. Andress, "The Learning Curve as a Production Tool,"
Harvard Business Review, January-February 1954, pp. 87-97.
\19 M. Cohen and B. Commoner, "How Government Purchase Programs Can
Get Electric Vehicles on the Road"; U.S. Department of Commerce,
Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975).
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:6
We opened our discussion of barriers to widespread EV use with the
limitations of current battery technology. EV performance is limited
today by the inability to incorporate sufficient energy into a
battery of reasonable weight and size. Research continues to improve
upon this condition, but EVs powered by batteries will most likely
always have shorter ranges and longer refueling times than comparable
ICEVS.
Major infrastructure support currently not in place includes
residential and commercial fleet charging facilities, public charging
stations, battery recycling facilities, emergency road service, and
electric service and supply. The level and type of infrastructure
that is sufficient is unknown, but it is clear that some additional
support is necessary for consumer acceptance of EVs. Gaps in EV
infrastructure support can be overcome technically but will require
considerable thought, time, and attention.
Many safety issues remain unresolved. Assurances of the
crashworthiness of EVs converted from ICEVs and purpose-built EVs are
likely to require different design solutions, testing procedures, and
safety regulations. For example, fasteners and enclosures for
batteries are likely to require special attention to minimize the
hazards and risks associated with high voltages and reactive
chemicals. The experts we interviewed universally stated that EVs
should not be exempted from vehicle crashworthiness standards.
The extent of the personal consumer EV market remains uncertain.
Technical constraint studies offer optimistic EV market estimates
that suggest that as many as 60 percent of U.S. households could
substitute an EV for their current vehicle. Consumer preference
studies predict that current limitations in EV technology will
restrict the private EV market to as few as 6 percent of automobile
consumers. But we believe that both of these types of studies have
limited validity as forecasts of new technology markets because the
constraint forecasts ignore the normal small-market development of
new technological commodities and the consumer preference forecasts
queried consumers who appeared to know relatively little about EV
technology. Methods that use a constraints analysis to identify the
potential market to be surveyed about attitudes and beliefs
surrounding EVS are more appropriate in this context. Such studies
find that the development of information and the accumulation of
experience are two key processes underlying the emergence of a
private EV market. Until EVs are integrated--at least at some basic
level--into mainstream traffic, consumers will remain unaccustomed to
EVs and a sizable personal consumer EV market is unlikely in the near
future. However, many vehicles in corporate and government fleets
travel within narrow daily ranges and are centrally garaged
overnight, two facts that would accommodate current limitations in EV
range and recharging.
Initial purchase costs two to three times higher than comparable
ICEVs will remain the largest obstacle to consumers willing to
purchase EVs. EV designs and production technology will continue to
evolve over the next few decades. Neither standardization (design or
production) nor high market demand has been achieved. However, if
production volumes do increase, purchase prices can be expected to
decline depending on the economies of scale and learning that are
typical in developing and producing successful new technology.
Nevertheless, EV purchase prices will likely remain 20-percent
higher--and could be substantially higher--than those of comparable
ICEVs.
ELECTRIC VEHICLE POLICIES AND
PROGRAMS
============================================================ Chapter 3
In this chapter, we answer our second evaluation question: What are
the nature and extent of industrialized nations' policies and
programs to develop, produce, and promote EVs? We include programs
that are conducted both nationally and locally. We found that EV
programs generally encompass four main areas that we discuss in
separate sections of the report. Diffusion and promotion policies
include tax credits, purchase incentives, rebates, fleet purchase
commitments, and other mechanisms to encourage the widespread
introduction of EVs. Production efforts include industry efforts and
plans as well as government goals to produce EVs. Vehicle and
infrastructure demonstrations focus on field tests of EV performance,
recharging stations, and consumer characteristics. We identified
efforts ranging from multicity public demonstrations to EV rental
agencies. The vehicle and battery research and development programs
we discuss are primarily those sponsored by national governments.
Generally, the nations we reviewed had one or more programs that
specifically addressed EVs. In some instances, particularly in the
United States, programs addressed EVs within the broader context of
alternatively fueled vehicles. We include these programs where
appropriate but caution the reader that although such "fuel-neutral"
programs are broad in scope, their ultimate effect may be affected by
economic and technical issues particular to different alternative
fuels.\1 We begin our presentation of EV programs with table 3.1,
depicting key elements of these programs: estimates of the number of
EVs on the road, major initiatives for encouraging or subsidizing EV
purchases, production efforts, EV and infrastructure demonstrations,
and vehicle and battery research and development. Table 3.1 is
followed by detailed descriptions of these key elements in each of
the eight nations.
Table 3.1
Key Elements of Electric Vehicle
Programs
Vehicle and
Purchase infrastruct Vehicle and
programs ure battery
Number of and Production demonstrati research and
Nation vehicles incentives efforts ons development
----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ---------------
France 500 Federal 2 major 10-city Federally
purchase auto public sponsored
subsidy manufacture demonstrati battery and
averages rs on program fuel cell
$3,030 producing with 20-50 research
commercial EVs at each
and site
prototype
EVS (total
planned
production
by 1995 =
51,750
vehicles)
Germany 1,000- Free from 2 major Public Federally
2,000 tax for 5 auto demonstrati sponsored
years; no manufacture on of lithium battery
federal rs infrastruct research
purchase beginning ure and
incentives pilot vehicles in
identified; production R�gen
some state of 100 each includes 60
subsidies vehicles
(up to 30%)
Italy 400 Free from Major auto Some small Federally
circulation manufacture urban sponsored
tax for 5 r has demonstrati battery
years; 50% produced ons of research
discount on 400 EVs (no buses
insurance public
tariffs production
plans)
Japan 1,600 50% federal National National Lithium battery
cost production Ecostation project
subsidy; goals of 2000
some 200,000 EVs Program;
municipal by 2000; 6 several
cost major auto nationally
subsidies manufacture and locally
(up to rs and 3 sponsored
50%); utility demonstrati
reduced companies ons
purchase producing
and commercial
possession or
taxes; 7% prototype
business EVs (total
tax credit; scheduled
subsidized to be
leasing produced by
programs 1995 =
10,680)
Sweden 380 $500 1 major 3-city Primary funding
purchase auto public focus is
rebate; manufacture demonstrati electric drive
significant r has on program; systems and
ly reduced produced Gothenberg quick-charge
municipal prototype the largest infrastructure
parking gas turbine with short-
fees hybrid term goal
vehicle (no of 200 EVs
public and long-
production term goal
goals) of 1,000
EVs
Switzerland 1,000 No federal 2 small Urban EV Small federal
purchase auto rental and budget to
incentives manufacture repair support safety
identified rs shops; and crash
producing annual Tour testing of
unique, de Sol EV Swiss-
lightweight races and manufactured
EVs (no exhibit lightweight EVs
public
production
goals)
United 25,000 Exemption Major auto No No federally
Kingdom from road manufacture demonstrati funded research
tax ($150) r has on programs and development
produced identified identified
475 EVs (no
public
production
plans)
United 1,000 $4,000 3 major Small fleet U.S. Advanced
States federal tax auto demonstrati Battery
credit for manufacture ons; some Consortium
fleets; rs produce small
some state small public
programs numbers of demonstrati
with EVs (total ons with
incentives planned commuter
or production cars or
alternative = 180 buses
fuel fleet vehicles)
requirement
s;
California-
type
mandates (6
states)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Several points are to be considered when reviewing these elements.
Data on the number of vehicles on the road can be difficult to obtain
and validate. We present estimates gathered from three general
sources: national ministries of environment, energy, or the like;
supranational organizations such as OECD; and EV advocacy and support
groups such as CITELEC. We note the instances in which we found
discrepancies. No precise or standard definition has been
established for "electric vehicle." Therefore, national estimates of
the number of EVs on the road may vary depending on the types of
vehicles included. For example, the total number of EVs can include
vehicles that are converted from ICEVs at relatively low prices or
very small golf-cart-like EVs used in resort areas. For example,
most of the 25,000 EVs in the United Kingdom are slow-moving milk
delivery vans.
We reiterate that production and price details are proprietary;
often, little support for such information exists publicly. In
particular, the paucity of data on manufacturer costs and consumer
prices inhibits any meaningful comparison of different EVs. That is,
while costs may range from $19,000 to more than $350,000 for an EV
van, we are unable to speak directly and conclusively to the reasons
behind these differences. Generally, EV prices vary as a result of
their level of technological sophistication and whether and how much
they include research and development costs. Many manufacturers are
developing EVs, and our review of production efforts is not meant to
be comprehensive. We present information on some of the larger and
more unique programs; however, we do not include a large number of
small entrepreneurs, particularly in the United States, who are
producing converted EVs.
--------------------
\1 For a more thorough discussion of alternative fuel vehicle
programs, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Alternative-Fueled
Vehicles: Progress Made in Accelerating Federal Purchases, but
Benefits and Costs Remain Uncertain, GAO/RCED-94-161 (Washington,
D.C.: July 19, 1994).
STATUS OF DIFFUSION AND
PROMOTION POLICIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1
Here we discuss initiatives at both the national and regional levels
to support the purchase of EVs. Typically, these might include tax
exemptions and credits, purchase rebates, fleet purchase commitments,
and laws mandating production.
UNITED STATES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1.1
The United States has about 1,000 EVs on the road. The federal
government offers a tax credit of up to $4,000 for the purchase of
EVs, and some states also have tax credits and purchase incentives.
Most EVs in the United States today are conversions in which the
traditional internal combustion engine has been removed and replaced
by a battery. Approximately 200 limited-production vehicles are
expected to undergo field testing in 1994.
At present, the primary force for developing lower-emission vehicles
in the United States and abroad stems from the California Low
Emission Vehicle Program, which prescribes the maximum emissions
permitted from new vehicles sold in that state. Lower vehicle
emission requirements are part of California's overall strategy for
reducing regional air pollution--a general goal of the federal Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990. The legislation requires that, in 1998,
2 percent of all new cars marketed in that state by large-volume
manufacturers be zero-emission vehicles; the percentage increases in
subsequent years to 10 percent in 2003. The legislation does not
specifically mandate that these zero-emission vehicles be electric.
In practical terms, however, the EV is the only current
transportation technology that emits no source pollutants.\2
This mandate has been weakened from its original form in which
manufacturers were required to sell, not simply supply, zero-emission
vehicles. The California mandate in its new form has been adopted in
some form by five other states in the Northeast: Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York. Other northeastern states
may follow shortly. It is estimated that 20 percent of the entire
U.S. new car market is presently covered by these mandates, a figure
that could rise to 33 percent as states that have announced their
intention to adopt such standards pass the necessary legislation.\3
In 1998, as many as 70,600 EVs may be required; in 2003, that figure
rises to 353,600 with a total accumulation of 919,200 EVs.
In general, the state programs and policies we identified can be
divided into four distinct categories: (1) laws mandating that
automobile manufacturers produce a certain percentage of EVs for sale
(as in California); (2) laws providing financial incentives for
purchasers of alternatively fueled vehicles, including EVs; (3) laws
that require that new state fleet purchases be alternatively fueled
vehicles, including EVs; and (4) demonstration programs to develop
and assess vehicles and infrastructure.\4 See appendix II for
additional information on these state programs.
State officials indicated that mandated fleet conversion legislation
often did not have sufficient power to ensure the purchase of
alternatively fueled vehicles, especially EVs. In particular, it was
noted that legislation authorizing incentives sometimes remains
unfunded, and laws may identify reformulated gasoline and low-sulfur
diesel fuels as "alternative" fuels that can power current vehicles
without any conversions.
At the national level, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 requires the
federal government to purchase 22,500 alternatively fueled vehicles
between 1993 and 1995. Beginning in 1996, requirements to purchase a
certain number of alternatively fueled vehicles are replaced by
requirements to purchase a certain percentage of these vehicles:
from 25 percent of new federal fleet purchases in 1996 to 75 percent
in 1999 and thereafter.
The act also mandates alternatively fueled vehicle purchase
percentages beginning in 1996 for state fleets and fleets operated by
organizations that make and sell alternative fuels. The secretary of
DOE will then determine by December 1996 and again by January 2000
whether additional fleet requirement programs for municipal and
private fleets are necessary to achieve the motor fuel displacement
goals of the act--10 percent by 2000 and 30 percent by 2010. Fleets
that wait until the later DOE rulings will be required to purchase
alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) at a more accelerated pace than
those that begin purchasing AFVs following the first ruling.
Currently, 11 cities and 12,000 vehicles are participating
voluntarily in the Clean Cities program; a total of 25 cities and
70,000 vehicles is anticipated by the end of 1994.
The other primary considerations for the rulemakings as outlined in
the Energy Policy Act include whether there exist sufficient fuel
supplies and needed infrastructure in fleet areas subject to the rule
as well as whether there will be sufficient number of new AFVs from
original equipment manufacturers. Fleet owners will not be required
to purchase converted vehicles, even if there are no purpose-built
vehicles yet available. Moreover, the possibility still remains that
DOE may determine during its rulemaking that reformulated gasoline
should be treated as an alternative fuel for municipal and private
fleet vehicles. If so, it is likely that many of these fleets would
opt to use reformulated gasoline in lieu of more costly alternatives
that require conversion equipment.
In April 1993, an executive order (E.O. 12844) committed the federal
government to a 50-percent increase in purchases of alternatively
fueled vehicles for a total of 33,750 from 1993 to 1995.
Appropriations for the incremental costs associated with purchasing
AFVs for the federal fleet program for 1994 were $18 million; DOE
requested $30 million for 1995 but will receive only $20 million.
The 10,200 AFVs in the federal fleet are currently divided fairly
evenly between natural gas and alcohol-based fuels (ethanol and
methanol). The 1995 goal for federal fleet purchases is 15,000
alternatively fueled vehicles. GSA will purchase 9,000 vehicles;
plans include 6,400 natural gas vehicles, 1,600 methanol vehicles,
1,000 ethanol vehicles, 100 liquid petroleum gas vehicles, and no
electric vehicles.
Federal officials overseeing the program advised that the varying
levels of commercialization of these AFVs are the primary reasons for
the balance of vehicle types planned for the federal fleet. Thus, as
in the state programs we reviewed, the lower availability and higher
costs to convert to EVs limit the likelihood that fleets will choose
electricity from a broader array of less expensive and more
convenient alternatives.\5
Moreover, these findings suggest that the fuel-neutral intent of
congressional legislation as demonstrated in the Energy Policy Act
may be limited by the inability of its programs to provide equitable
support or cost-sharing for all alternative fuels.
Furthermore, the future of state-legislated mandates remains
uncertain. U.S. automobile manufacturers generally oppose such
mandates because they believe that EV technology is not sufficiently
mature for widespread implementation. The industry agreed in October
1993 to a Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) with
the federal government to develop the "clean car of the future."\6
Reports suggest that industry is prepared to accelerate its
production of alternatively fueled vehicles if the northeastern
states abandon versions of the California mandate.
The technical goal of PNGV is to develop a range of technologies that
will improve the efficiency and reduce emissions of standard
vehicles, such as technologies that reduce vehicle weight, improve
aerodynamics, or improve the efficiency of accessories such as air
conditioning. Its economic goal is to promote competitiveness by
developing and introducing manufacturing technologies and practices
that will reduce the time and cost associated with designing a new
vehicle and bringing it to the marketplace. PNGV's long-term goal is
the development of a vehicle that will be up to three times more fuel
efficient than today's vehicles (up to 80 mpg) but that (1) costs no
more to own and operate; (2) offers comparable characteristics
relating to performance, spaciousness, and utility; and (3) meets or
exceeds all safety and emissions requirements.
The initiative will pursue simultaneously the development of a number
of possible technologies. The five primary areas of focus are
advanced lightweight materials; energy conversion, such as gas
turbines, fuel cells, and advanced diesel engines; energy storage
devices, such as batteries, flywheels, and ultracapacitors; more
efficient electrical systems; and exhaust recovery systems.\7
The concept vehicle is planned for development before 2001 and a
production prototype is planned for development during 2002-2004.
While it is too early to know if and how EVs will be included in
PNGV, they will again be competing with a broad array of alternative
fuels and energy conversion devices.
In short, while EVs are included in broader AFV initiatives, no
federal plan has been implemented in the United States that is
specifically designed to diffuse and promote EVs. Actions are
limited to state legislation of various prescriptive types, some
limited financial incentives, and, especially, research on new
battery development funded partially by DOE.
--------------------
\2 Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles would also emit no source pollutants
since their primary byproduct is water. However, fuel cell vehicles
will not be available by 1998.
\3 Vehicle sales in these states are a disproportionately large
portion of all vehicle sales in the United States.
\4 These legislative initiatives were identified and reported by the
Electric Transportation Coalition through October 11, 1993.
\5 The life-cycle prices to own and operate different AFVs appear to
cover a wide range. For example, the break-even price of gasoline
(the retail gasoline price that equates the full life-cycle cost per
mile of the AFV with that of a gasoline ICEV) could be as high as
$4.80 for EVs. That is, gasoline would need to cost $4.80 per gallon
before an EV could be competitive with a gasoline ICEV. It could be
as low as $1.70-$1.90 for methanol and compressed or liquid natural
gas vehicles. (Sperling, Deluchi, and Wang, 1991).
\6 PNGV is headed by the Department of Commerce and includes
government officials from the Department of Transportation, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Energy, the
Department of Defense, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, and the National Science Foundation. Industry
participation is coordinated through the vice presidents for
research, development, and testing at the three major U.S.
automobile manufacturers and the U.S. Council for Automotive
Research. The program plans to include initiatives targeted to
independent contributors, such as universities and private inventors.
\7 Fuel cells combine hydrogen from fuel with oxygen from air to
produce energy, heat, and water. Flywheels provide energy by means
of momentum. Ultracapacitors are electrical devices that could serve
as peak-power sources for EVs.
JAPAN
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1.2
At the end of March 1993, Japan had 1,600 EVs on the road, an
increase from about 1,285 in March 1992. During fiscal year 1991,
357 units were produced, and during fiscal year 1992, between 500 and
600 EVs were produced. Japanese officials cite current technical
limitations and high cost as reasons why they do not foresee a large,
immediate personal consumer EV market in their own country since
(unlike the United States) most Japanese families own only one car
that they use for both short trips and long-range driving. The
Japanese automobile manufacturers do, however, plan to market in the
United States.
However, in October 1991, the Electric Vehicle Council of Japan
announced its Long-Term Program for Market Expansion of Electric
Vehicles, with a target of 200,000 EVs on the road in Japan by 2000.
This plan is the third EV market expansion program developed by the
council. The council's first plan was devised in 1977 and revised in
1983 with a target date of 1990. The current plan has expanded the
goals and extended the time.
In its third plan, the council aims not only to have 200,000 EVs on
the road by 2000 but also plans a progressive increase in production
to achieve a 100,000 annual production rate by 2000. To promote
expansion, the program is divided into four phases. The aim of the
first phase (1991-93) was to introduce EVs into national and
municipal government agencies and, in parallel, to enhance
technological improvements of EVs in terms of performance and
quality. Promotion measures include financial supports such as
subsidies, tax incentives, or financial assistance, as well as the
construction of an extensive recharging and maintenance
infrastructure to enhance public acceptance of EVs.
The second phase (1994-97) focuses on the public utilities for water,
gas, and electricity and other private delivery and service companies
that can use them for most applications and that are expected to take
a leading role in environmental protection efforts. Such large-scale
introduction of EVs is expected to create broad public demand for EVs
as well as drive down production prices.
The third phase (1998-2000) targets ordinary consumers as EV
purchasers with heavy emphasis on mass production to reduce costs and
on development of the infrastructure needed to make EVs more
attractive to those consumers. The fourth phase of the program
extends beyond 2001, when the government's goal is to have an
autonomous demand for EVs. Planned production for the next 8 years
is shown in table 3.2.
Table 3.2
Japan's Electric Vehicle Production
Goals
Number of units
Year produced
---------------------------------------------- ----------------------
1993 1,400
1994 4,000
1995 7,000
1996 10,000
1997 14,000
1998 25,000
1999 55,000
2000 100,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Machinery and Information Industries Bureau, Japanese
Ministry of International Trade and Industry.
However, according to one Ministry of International Trade and
Industry (MITI) official we interviewed, the more important intent of
the council's current plan is not to have produced a targeted number
of EVs by 2000 but to have developed a consensus that allows the
identification of desirable research and development activities for
industry to pursue. The plan assumes that if certain technological
targets were met, the demand for EVs in Japan would expand.
Technical goals include a range of about 155 miles at 25 mph (current
performance is 75 miles), a top speed of 75 mph (current speed is 50
mph), a battery life of 4 years (current life is 1-1/2 to 2), and a
cost 1.2 times a comparable ICEV's (current cost is three times an
ICEV's).
Municipal governments throughout Japan have committed to fleet
purchases in a move toward both popularizing EVs and reducing
production costs. At the national level, MITI subsidizes 50 percent
of the price of EVs with a budget limit of $910,000 per year. In its
5-year plan (1992-96) to popularize EVs, MITI has also given 23 EVs
to three companies as a way to develop vehicles for road use. MITI
has asked the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development
Organization (NEDO) to conduct the program (budgeted at $29,090 for
fiscal year 1993), which will monitor EV use.\8 The plan also
includes quick-recharging stations for each company for use both day
and night. MITI will incorporate results from the project into its
Ecostation 2000 plan, which we discuss below. Japan's Environment
Agency also provided subsidies to local governments to buy
low-emission vehicles with a $645,000 budget in fiscal year 1992.
Tax incentives include reduced taxes when the vehicle is purchased
and reduced annual possession taxes. Businesses may receive a
7-percent tax credit or a 30-percent depreciation allowance on EV
purchases. However, officials from the Japan Electric Vehicle
Association (JEVA) noted that tax credits are not a major incentive
because EV batteries are heavy and some taxes are based on vehicle
weight. Consequently, the taxes on EVs are typically higher than
those on a lighter ICEV and the tax credit brings the ultimate cost
close to that of an ICEV.
MITI established JEVA in 1976 to promote the research and development
of EVs. Partially funded by MITI, it consists of 110 private
businesses and organizations, including automobile manufacturers,
public utilities, and battery companies. JEVA's fiscal year 1990
budget was $348 million with $130 million of that total received in
the form of subsidies from public organizations. One of JEVA's
primary activities is its EV leasing project. Since the project
began in 1978, JEVA has leased more than 400 EVs to local governments
and private organizations throughout Japan. Currently, JEVA counts
about 300 units in its program. The Environment Agency also leases
EVs to businesses free of charge to identify areas for which EVs are
best suited.
Locally, the Tokyo metropolitan government leases EVs to businesses
as a way to popularize them. As of May 1993, 123 vehicles had been
leased. The government also subsidizes 50 percent of the cost of EV
purchases; 5 EVs have been bought through the program. In total,
Tokyo has 462 AFVs, including 279 EVs and 12 hybrids. Tokyo's fiscal
year 1993 budget allocated $1.5 million in EV purchase subsidies.
Saitama prefecture has a 3-year plan (1993-95) to purchase 15
Diahatsu EV vans, provide EVs free of charge to its 92 cities and
towns, and subsidize EV leases for private corporations. Aichi
prefecture, at the center of Japan's automobile industry, has a
similar plan to increase its EVs from the present 26 to 100.
--------------------
\8 NEDO is a public corporation under MITI's Agency of Natural
Resources and Energy.
GERMANY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1.3
Officials representing the German government reported that between
1,000 and 2,000 EVs are on the road in Germany today. EVs are free
from taxes for 5 years. The federal government offers no financial
purchase support for EVs. Officials from the environment and
transport ministries stated that the federal government is not
actively supporting EVs. Some local regions in Germany are actively
promoting EVs. Hamburg has 70 registered EVs and at least one public
charging station and some German states (Bavaria and
Baden-W�rttemberg) provide financial support up to 30 percent of an
EV's purchase price. RWE Energie AG, a battery company located in
Essen, has provided 20 EV vans through a leasing program to city
authorities in which an EV van can be leased for the same price as a
conventional vehicle.
FRANCE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1.4
OECD estimates that France has 500 EVs on the road today. In 1991,
the French Agency for Environment and Energy Management (ADEME)
created a special fund to subsidize the purchase of the first 1,000
EVs by local communities. Total funds amounted to $3 million, or an
average of $3,030 per vehicle. However, the program has not been as
successful as expected. The agency earmarked only $404,000 for the
program and, as of September 1992, had spent only $242,000. It is
not clear whether this is the result of a lack of available funds, a
lack of consumer interest, or an inability to locate EVs in
sufficient numbers.
SWITZERLAND
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1.5
Today, approximately 1,000 EVs are in use in Switzerland, which has
the largest number of EVs per capita in Europe. In addition, 8
resort areas are closed to all traffic except EVs, where
approximately 500 low-speed vehicles are in use. The Swiss
government does not offer EV purchase incentives. The original
impetus for EVs came from the Ministry of the Interior, which
declared a goal of 200,000 EVs in Switzerland by 2010. The Tour de
Sol, an internationally recognized race for solar and lightweight
EVs, and the Electric Vehicle Grand Prix are held every year in
Switzerland and contribute substantially to the promotion of EVs.
SWEDEN
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1.6
Sweden has approximately 380 EVs on the road today. In an effort to
reduce transportation-related pollution, Sweden has instituted a
three-tiered rebate program for new cars: purchasers of class I cars
(equivalent to California 1996 emissions standards) receive about
$550 in rebates, purchasers of class II cars (equivalent to U.S.
federal 1994 standards) receive no rebate, and purchasers of class
III cars (equivalent to current U.S. federal standards) must pay an
additional $275. EVs are considered class I vehicles.
UNITED KINGDOM
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1.7
For over 50 years, the United Kingdom employed nearly 28,000
slow-speed milk "floats" for at-home deliveries. Their numbers are
systematically falling, however, as supermarket purchases encroach on
home milk deliveries. In 1989, approximately 25,000 EVs were in use:
33 were electric buses, 25,138 were goods and delivery vans, and 79
were passenger automobiles. EVs receive a road tax exemption of
about $150.
ITALY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1.8
Officials in Italy estimated that about 400 EVs were registered in
1993. Most of these vehicles are converted ICEVs. EVs in Italy are
free from circulation (transportation or traffic) tax for the first 5
years and discounted 50 percent on insurance tariffs. The Lombardia
region of Northern Italy has proposed legislation to contribute 30
percent of the total cost of EVs with the intention to subsidize a
yearly market of 1,000 EVs.
MAJOR PRODUCTION EFFORTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2
In this section, we discuss what we learned about major international
EV production efforts. Since production plans are often proprietary,
limited information was available in some instances on these efforts.
UNITED STATES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.1
Chrysler delivered five Dodge Caravan EVs to utilities on the East
Coast in April 1993, making Chrysler the first of the major U.S.
auto manufacturers to reach the market in 1993. In prototype, the
car is officially known as the Chrysler TEVan, but all 50 EVs planned
for 1993 were to be based on the Dodge Caravan and sold through Dodge
dealers who were also to provide service. Priced at $120,000, the
car is powered by a nickel-iron battery and a 65-horsepower DC motor
with a range of 80 miles on a charge and a top speed of 70 mph.
(Chrysler announced in March 1994 that 1994 prices for the TEVan
would be reduced by 15 percent to $100,000.) Chrysler's cost is
estimated at $250,000 to $300,000 per vehicle.
As late as April 1993, Ford still planned to deliver 81 Ecostar
minivans to U.S., Mexican, and European utilities in August of that
year. However, Ford announced shortly thereafter that foreign
manufacturers (in Germany and the United Kingdom) were unable to
supply sufficient numbers of sodium sulfur batteries. Thus, delivery
of the complete vehicles would be delayed indefinitely. In November
1993, the first six demonstration Ecostars were delivered to fleets
in six U.S. cities. Nine of the 81 vans--all for the California Air
Resources Board (CARB)--are planned to be hybrid vehicles. That is,
they will be fitted with small gasoline engines to drive the
generator that will increase the range of a van. The 72 others will
be pure EVs. Prototype Ecostars have a range of 95 miles and a top
speed of 70 mph. In the past, Ford leased the Ecostar for $100,000
for 30 months. Ford reports that the Ecostar costs approximately
$350,000, of which $60,000 to $80,000 is for the battery.\9
In 1990, General Motors unveiled the Impact, a sports car
purpose-built prototype slated for large-scale production in 1993.
The Impact uses lead acid batteries and has a range of 50 to 70 urban
and 70 to 90 highway miles, has a top speed of 75 miles per hour, and
accelerates to 60 mph in 8.0 seconds. It will cost the equivalent of
about $3.00 per gallon of gasoline to own and operate the Impact, and
its retail price when it finally reaches the showroom is expected to
be $25,000 or more. The car features several innovations to offset
the considerable weight of its battery (1,100 lbs), such as an
aluminum body structure 40-percent lighter than steel, and magnesium
seats that reduce mass by 64 percent. In addition, its aerodynamic
drag coefficient (.19) is 30-percent better than that of current
cars; its tires roll with a resistance 25-percent lower than current
tires; and its heat pump both heats and cools, using an
environmentally benign refrigerant. (See figure 3.1.)
Figure 3.1: Energy Efficiency
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: The GM Impact is
aerodynamically designed to
improve energy efficiency.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
However, citing market and profit concerns, General Motors determined
about 18 months later, in December 1992, that it would not mass
produce the Impact. Recently, General Motors modified this decision
with the announcement of the $30 million PrEView Drive Program to
produce 50 test Impacts. Early plans suggest that the vehicles will
be deployed for 2 years in 12 U.S. regions where more than 1,000
private motorists will have the opportunity to drive the cars for 1
to 2 weeks. While the project appears to focus mostly on assessing
market potential, performance data will also be collected by onboard
data collection systems. The $30 million price for the 50 EVs
includes the cost of installing (and removing) recharging
capabilities at the proposed test sites. DOE officials stated that
one of General Motors' major interests is in the capability of its
own Hughes inductive coupler, a recently introduced recharging
technology that will most likely vie for market acceptance along with
more traditional plug-in rechargers.
--------------------
\9 In June 1994, Ford reported to NHTSA that two fires had occurred
in Ecostar EVs during recharging of their sodium sulfur batteries.
As a result, Ford has ordered all Ecostars parked until the cause of
the fires can be determined.
JAPAN
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.2
JEVA officials reported that all EVs produced in Japan were based on
actual customer orders. Suzuki, Toyota, Daihatsu, and Isuzu have all
produced models for sale, and Nissan and Mitsubishi soon plan mass
production based on orders from government agencies and private
corporations. Electric utilities and research organizations have
also developed their own prototypes.
Nissan has introduced its prototype two-door coupe, the Future
Electric Vehicle, powered by nickel cadmium batteries with a range of
155 miles at 25 mph (100 at 45 mph), a top speed of 80 mph, and an
acceleration with two occupants of 0 to 25 mph in 3.6 seconds. This
EV is highly aerodynamic with a drag coefficient matching the
Impact's 0.19. Nissan states that the vehicle can receive a rapid
recharge to 40 percent of battery capacity in 6 minutes. It was
developed in consortium with Japan Storage Battery over 18 months at
an estimated cost of $897,000.
Nissan also produces the Cedric EV and the Gloria EV. Both are
powered with sealed lead acid batteries developed by Japan Storage
Battery and have a range of 75 miles at 25 mph, a top speed of about
60 mph, and a recharging time of 5 hours. Nissan began leasing the
sedans to central government agencies in February 1993 and plans to
sell 50 in December 1993 to the Environment Agency; local governments
in Tokyo, Osaka, and Nagoya; electric power companies; and other
large corporations. Planned prices are between $179,000 and $269,000
for each EV.
Toyota has sold 42 Townace passenger vans to Chiba and Osaka
prefectures, Hirakata City, Sumida ward, Tokyo, and Kawasaki City.
The vans sold for $71,700 without recharging equipment, and all
purchases were subsidized by the Environment Agency. The Townace is
powered by lead acid batteries with a range of about 100 miles at 25
mph, a top speed of 68 mph, and an acceleration of 0 to 25 mph in 6.5
seconds. Toyota is also developing the Crown Majesta passenger van,
to be powered by a sealed lead acid battery with performance
characteristics similar to the Townace. Two test vans were due in
1993, and Toyota plans to lease the vans to municipal governments.
The Daihatsu Hijet, a light van, appears to be the most widely used
EV by businesses and government. Daihatsu is the only known
manufacturer with a production line dedicated to EVs. (However,
Daihatsu currently produces the EVs by hand, since the relatively low
volume of cars does not warrant using the production line.) Daihatsu
has developed its own production schedule and expected to produce 400
EVs in fiscal year 1993. The Hijet is powered by a lead acid battery
with a range of about 80 miles at 25 mph and a top speed of about 50
mph. In past years, Daihatsu has produced about 300 vans per year
for local governments, utility companies, and large corporations.
OECD reports that Daihatsu sells the vans for $19,730 and has
announced plans for annual production of 10,000 by 1995. MITI
officials quoted a consumer price of about $36,400, and Daihatsu
officials told us they sell the van for about $27,300. We were
unable to reconcile these different price quotes but assume that they
reflect, in part, the inclusion (or exclusion) of government purchase
subsidies discussed in the previous section.
Mitsubishi produces the Libero EV, a light cargo van powered by
either lead acid or nickel cadmium batteries. Its range is 100 miles
at 25 mph with lead acid and 155 miles at 25 mph with nickel cadmium;
top speed is about 80 mph, and recharging time is 8 hours.
Mitsubishi delivered 28 vehicles to TEPCO power company in the first
half of 1993 and plans mass production based on government orders of
40 to 50 vehicles in the first year and annual production of 100
shortly after. The Libero is priced at $89,700 for the lead acid
version and $161,500 with a nickel cadmium battery.
Mazda has unveiled the Roadster EV based on the U.S. two-seater MX-5
model. The Roadster EV uses nickel cadmium batteries and has a range
of 112 miles at 25 mph, a top speed of 80 mph, and an acceleration of
0 to 25 in 4.2 seconds. The company has produced three vehicles for
a 2-year road test in cooperation with its development partner,
Chugoku Electric Power Company.
Several electric utility companies in Japan have developed their own
EVs. The most notable example is the TEPCO IZA, a two-door coupe
that uses nickel cadmium batteries, which holds the reported world
records for range (340 miles at 25 mph) and top speed (109 mph). The
IZA can accelerate to a distance of one fourth mile in 18 seconds.
MITI has chosen the IZA as its own EV test car.
GERMANY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.3
Volkswagen has produced 70 Citistromers, electric Jettas powered by
lead acid batteries. The Citistromer's top speed is about 65 mph
with a range of 75 miles and a price of $42,700. Volkswagen is
working with ASEA Brown Boveri (ABB), one of Germany's large battery
manufacturers, to develop a sodium sulfur version for additional
range. Citistromers have been purchased and delivered to Sweden for
its three-city demonstration program. The Citistromer II is also
priced at $42,700 and is based on the Golf model. With lead acid
batteries, the car has a range of 35 to 50 miles and a top speed of
62 mph. Volkswagen is also working on a parallel hybrid, nickel
cadmium version of the Golf.
Citing the California market, BMW recently announced its E-1 and E-2
models, which will have the option of being delivered with a sodium
sulfur battery that accelerates from 0 to 30 mph in 6 seconds,
travels for 135 miles at 30 mph, and has a top speed of 75 mph.
Mercedes Benz has electrified its 190E four seater with sodium nickel
chloride batteries that recharge in 12 hours. Its range is about 110
miles at a constant speed of 30 mph and a top speed of 75 mph. In
March 1994, Mercedes Benz announced that it would manufacture the
Swatchmobile, a concept car developed by Swatch, a leading Swiss
watch manufacturer. The two-seater vehicle is expected to be ready
for testing by 1996 and is anticipated to be less than 10 feet in
length, demonstrate crashworthiness, and cost under $10,000.
FRANCE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.4
PSA group (Peugeot and Citro�n) recently unveiled a purpose-built
city car, the CITELA, which it hopes to launch by the end of the
decade. According to expectations, the CITELA's engine will last
620,000 miles and its nickel cadmium battery life is 10 years. The
car's maximum speed is 68 mph (continuous maximum speed is about 55
mph), and it can travel about 130 miles between charges when operated
continuously at 25 mph, about 70 miles under regular urban driving
conditions. The CITELA's price has not been announced, but PSA
expects that at mass production levels, its price would be about 10
percent more than equivalent ICEVs. The company's president has
stated publicly that mass production would be possible only with
financial assistance from the French government.
PSA has also announced production goals of the electric series--which
are vans retrofitted with lead acid batteries--of 10,000 in 1997 at a
cost $3,500 more than an equivalent ICEV. PSA has the only
production line that can accommodate both ICEVs and EVs. They
estimate that they would need to sell a series of 50,000 EVs to break
even on the project. Although officials in France noted that Peugeot
would produce these vehicles only if they have a viable market, we
were informed that the company has taken the initial steps to
production, including preliminary negotiations with battery and
engine suppliers. PSA's long-term objective is to produce and market
50,000 urban fleet EVs with advanced batteries at sales prices
equivalent to and operating costs lower than those of ICEVs.
To date, about 600 vehicles have been produced; customers include 17
French cities, 8 other European countries, and Hong Kong. Beginning
in 1995, PSA plans to commercialize several thousand EVs for fleets
and private consumers. PSA is also developing a coupe model for
French demonstration projects beginning in 1995. Long-term
development projects include generating electric energy by a gas
turbine driving a turbogenerator at high speed.
Renault's strategy for EVs is based on three types of goals: (1)
marketing utility EVs derived from existing fleet vehicles, (2)
developing partnerships with other European industries and research
firms, and (3) commercializing passenger vehicles in 1994 followed in
1995-96 with purpose-built EVs.\10
Renault has produced 50 to 100 Master and Express vans with either
lead acid or nickel cadmium batteries. Renault recently delivered
some of these EVs to Sweden for its three-city demonstration project.
Swedish EV program officials reported that they purchased Renault
vans powered by nickel cadmium batteries at the price of about
$40,000, or about a third of the selling price of the least expensive
U.S.-produced electric van.
Renault is also preparing an electric version of the Clio for
production in 1995 and general sale in 1996 with an annual production
volume of 1,000. The Zoom, a purpose-built EV in prototype, is
currently under development with the manufacturing firm, Matra. Its
nickel cadmium battery provides about 90 miles of range and a top
speed of 75 mph. The batteries require 8 hours for a complete
recharge but can be charged to 80 percent of capacity in 2 hours.
SEER, a component manufacturer, has produced more than 50 Volta vans
powered by lead acid batteries and sold at a reported price of
$22,700 to municipal corporations, which receive a subsidy of $2,730.
--------------------
\10 Renault cooperates with battery manufacturers (Italy's CEAC and
FIAMM, France's SAFT, and Germany's ABB), engine and electronics
manufacturers (Germany's ABB, Siemens, and Magnet Motor), and
research laboratories and institutes (EUREKA programs and the
National Polytechnic Institute in Grenoble, France).
SWITZERLAND
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.5
Although there are no large automobile manufacturers in Switzerland,
officials estimate that 20 small manufacturers and importers offer
two-seat compact EVs on the Swiss market. The prices for these
vehicles are between $12,580 and $24,820, or 50-percent to
100-percent higher than prices for corresponding ICEVs. The Swiss
cars are unique in that a large majority are specially designed as
EVs and are made primarily from lightweight, high-strength plastic
resins.
Horlacher produces two EV models and has several others in
development. The Horlacher Sport is a purpose-built, two-door coupe
powered by sodium sulfur batteries.\11 The Sport is reported to have
a range of 185 to 310 miles, depending on driving conditions and
speed, a top speed of 77 mph, an acceleration of 0 to 50 mph in 14.5
seconds, and a 4-to-5-hour recharge time. This company also produces
the purpose-built Horlacher City for urban use. The City is powered
by lead acid batteries with a range of about 40 to 90 miles and a top
speed of 56 mph. Horlacher is looking for production partners,
including some in California.
Esoro produces the E301, a purpose-built EV powered by nickel cadmium
batteries. The E301 has a range of 60 to 90 miles, depending on
driving conditions and speed, a top speed of 75 mph, and an
acceleration of 0 to 30 mph in 7.5 seconds. The frameless composite
body platform allows modular changes to create a coupe, a
four-seater, or a small service vehicle. (See figure 3.2.)
Figure 3.2: Composite Body
Platform
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: The Swiss-manufactured
Esoro E301 uses a frameless
composite body platform that
allows modular changes to
create a coupe, a four-seater,
or a small service vehicle.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
--------------------
\11 When Horlacher brought this car to the United States, lead acid
batteries replaced the sodium sulfur batteries. While the reasons
for this are not certain, it may have been the result of U.S.
restrictions regarding transport of sodium and sulfur on roadways.
SWEDEN
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.6
Sweden is primarily interested in developing hybrid models. Two main
reasons have been cited: (1) most Swedish households own only one
vehicle, thus making replacement with pure EVs impractical, and (2)
Swedes generally travel within relatively long ranges and only
hybrids can accommodate this pattern.
Volvo has unveiled its prototype, the Environmental Concept Car, a
series hybrid, four-seater sedan. The car is powered by both nickel
cadmium batteries and a gasoline turbine engine. When powered by
batteries, it has a range of about 100 miles at 30 mph, a top speed
of 109 mph, and acceleration of 0 to 60 mph in 22 seconds. Using its
gasoline engine, the car's range is extended to 418 miles at 55 mph.
Volvo has made the point that the car's gasoline engine meets
California's ultra low emission vehicle standards. Volvo has not
announced its production plans.
Sweden's Clean Air Transport Inc. (CAT) received the contract to
develop Los Angeles's LA301 car, a series hybrid sedan, along with
United Kingdom's International Automotive Design. The LA301 is
designed to be powered by lead acid batteries with a range of between
40 and 60 miles, a top speed of 75 mph, and an acceleration of 0-30
in 7 seconds. The LA301 can accommodate nickel cadmium or sodium
sulfur batteries when they are commercially available. When we
interviewed CAT officials in October 1992, they had reportedly spent
$12 million to develop two prototypes. Representatives of Los
Angeles Water and Power Company reported to us in March 1993 that
they had committed $7 million to the project but to date had
disbursed $4.5 million. They also confirmed that CAT would require
an estimated $30 million to establish mass production of the LA301.
CAT was unable to raise the required funds. In January 1994, CAT
declared bankruptcy and owes millions to the city of Los Angeles for
noncompliance.
Solon Corporation in Uddevalla, Sweden, has developed a prototype
sportscar powered by a series of new lead acid starter batteries that
bind the acid to a thin fiberglass-floss separator material. The
battery is unique in that it provides a large active surface area and
much lower internal resistance than current lead acid batteries.
Solon's cars are manufactured from readily available "off-the-shelf"
materials. According to the manufacturers, this greatly increases
manufacturing flexibility and reduces the cost of the vehicle. The
car is currently a prototype, but the manufacturers state that they
have 20 purchase orders at a price of about $28,000. (See figure
3.3.)
Figure 3.3: Off-the-Shelf
Components
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Solon Corporation of
Sweden uses off-the-shelf
components to reduce costs and
increase manufacturing
flexibility. The hinged doors
allow easier access to tight
parking spaces.
(See figure in printed
edition.)
UNITED KINGDOM
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.7
Between 1982 and 1986, Bedford and Freight Rover produced 475
electric vans, the former tested in the United States as the General
Motors Griffon. However, this program was suspended in 1986 as a
result of corporate finance problems. The United Kingdom also
recently suspended one of the largest and longest-running electric
passenger car programs, the Enfield car project, in which electric
utilities employed 70 purpose-built electric cars over a period of 14
years.
ITALY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2.8
Fiat has produced more than 400 Panda Elettras and Cinquecentos for
utilities, government agencies, and personal consumers. With a lead
acid battery, the vehicles have a top speed between 40 and 50 mph and
a range of about 45 miles in urban driving. The Cinquecento has the
option of a nickel cadmium battery that increases the range by about
half but the speed only marginally.
The Fiat EVs have not been well received by the public or the
government agencies that have purchased the vehicles and supported EV
programs. The status of Fiat's EV program is not very clear today.
INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT AND
DEMONSTRATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3
Programs to develop and demonstrate infrastructure encompass efforts
to create a critical mass of vehicles and recharging stations so that
systematic evaluations of vehicle performance and requirements can be
conducted. These efforts are often supported by a mix of funds from
national and regional programs.
UNITED STATES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.1
At the federal level, we were able to identify 13 EV demonstrations
participating in DOE's Site Operators Users Task Force funded in
fiscal year 1994 at $1.9 million. In all, these programs include 119
vehicles. Yet 7 of the 13 programs had 5 or fewer vehicles. The
large majority of site operators were electric utility companies or
local municipal authorities. The site operator program began in the
late 1970's with approximately 1,000 converted vehicles. By 1986,
only 500 vehicles remained in the program. A lack of technical
support for the fleet operators was cited as the major reason for the
dramatic decrease in vehicles.
We were also able to identify EV demonstration projects in 20 states
with a total of about 150 cars, vans, or buses.\12 As in the federal
program, these projects are sponsored primarily by utility companies,
which are the main participants, and are located mostly on the East
Coast and in three western states. However, with a few exceptions,
most demonstration projects have fewer than 10 vehicles. The
Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) has the largest EV fleet
with 30 vehicles, over 70 EV charging stations, and an EV loan
program for local companies.
Also in California, the Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District
operates eight electric shuttle buses on a downtown circuit.
Officials state that ridership has increased from 100,000 to 1
million in the past 2 years. The electric shuttles are inexpensive
to operate, costing 2.5 cents per mile compared to 16 cents per mile
for a diesel-powered bus.
The Massachusetts Division of Energy Resources has begun implementing
one of the more ambitious demonstration projects with a total of $2.6
million in funds from private sources and the Federal Highway
Adminstration's Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991. The
program is part of a congestion mitigation and air quality
improvement plan that will use electrically powered commuter
vehicles. Beginning in the summer of 1993 and extending for 5 years,
commuters in the Greater Boston area will drive between their homes
and a parking area near transportation stations where public transit
to Boston is available. Data will be gathered from the vehicles and
participants to evaluate efficiency and performance. All vehicles
will have recharging capability at home, and half will have
recharging capabilities at the public parking lot. The project's
overall goal is 50 EVs; 20 EVs have been procured in its first phase.
Generally, EV demonstration officials report that it is very
difficult to obtain a sufficient number of EVs for a meaningful
demonstration project. Indeed, some federal U.S. demonstration
funding currently requires a minimum of 50 vehicles per program.
Several officials we interviewed stated that they simply cannot find
50 vehicles.
The Energy Policy Act created two programs under the responsibility
of DOE that specifically target EVs. The act authorized a $40
million 5-year program to develop and demonstrate EV infrastructure.
Grants were scheduled to be awarded in 1994 to no more than 10
projects representing geographically and climatically diverse regions
of the United States with individual project budgets capped at $4
million.
Projects may focus on five aims: serviceability of EVs; installation
of charging facilities; rates and cost recovery for utilities
investing in infrastructure capital-related expenditures; development
of safety and health procedures, such as guidelines for battery
charging, watering, and emissions; and the conduct of information
dissemination programs.
DOE's commercial demonstration project is authorized to solicit
proposals from U.S. metropolitan areas with a 10-year budget of $50
million. Each project must include at least 50 EVs and DOE will
provide a maximum discount of $10,000 per vehicle. A limit of 10
projects will be funded and no one project may be awarded more than
25 percent of the total funds authorized for the program.
The program is designed to accelerate the development and use of EVs
and is structured to evaluate the performance of EVs in field
operation. Consequently, selection criteria include the
manufacturer's ability to develop and assist in the demonstration of
the proposed EVs, the geographic and climatic diversity of the
eligible metropolitan areas, the long-term technical and competitive
viability of the EVs, the suitability of the EVs for their intended
uses, the environmental effects of the EVs' use, the price
differential between EVs and ICEVs and any proposed discounts, the
extent of state or local government financial involvement, the
proportion of domestic content of the EVs, and the safety of the EVs.
However, as of May 1994, no funds had been appropriated for either
program. Instead, $2.73 million has been authorized to expand the
Site Operator Users Task Force program with the planned purchase of a
total of 40 to 45 additional EVs.
More to the point, it is possible that--even with full funding--these
programs will encounter the same problem as those currently under
way--namely, a paucity of commercially available EVs for
participation in the programs. The three major U.S. automobile
manufacturers together are thus far committed to producing fewer than
250 EVs--less than half of the vehicles needed for the commercial
demonstration project alone.
In the area of technology development, the Advanced Research Projects
Agency (ARPA) announced in July 1993 its selection of six regional
consortia to participate in its ongoing hybrid and EV program funded
at $25 million in fiscal year 1993. The ARPA program is funded at
$46.25 million in fiscal year 1994 and solicited new proposals
through July 1994. In an effort to foster technology transfer, the
agency's programs are designed for technologies that have both
military and commercial applications.
The Northeast Alternative Vehicle Consortium received $4 million to
conduct EV infrastructure demonstrations in eight northeastern
states, including commuter vehicle pilot projects for each state,
four technology projects, and a multivehicle project (buses, trucks,
vans, and cars) at Hanscom Air Force Base in Bedford, Massachusetts.
The Southern Coalition for Advanced Transportation will use $4
million in the southeastern United States to evaluate high-efficiency
climate controls and rapid battery recharging with pick-up trucks at
Patrick Air Force Base, Florida, manufacture electric buses for
Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Atlanta, Georgia, and conduct research on
flywheel technologies.\13
The Mid-America Electric Vehicle consortium received $4 million to
test electrified Chevrolet S-10 trucks and buses in Chattanooga,
Tennessee, Indianapolis, Indiana, and Warren, Michigan.
CALSTART was awarded $4 million to establish new programs to develop
EV technology and infrastructure. These include operating station
cars around San Francisco's Bay Area Rapid Transit stations, building
three military and two commercial hybrid electric buses to be managed
by the Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District, and building
light-duty military trucks and commercial vehicles for use on and
around California military bases.
Finally, SMUD received $2.5 million and Hawaii Electric Vehicle
Demonstration Project Consortium received $5 million to conduct EV
technology development and infrastructure programs.
--------------------
\12 We did not conduct a complete survey of the states. We did
survey the states that the Electric Transportation Coalition
identified as having passed legislation regarding AFVs by January
1993.
\13 Flywheel energy storage is based on the storage of rotational
kinetic energy in a spinning mass. Energy added to the flywheel
increases its speed of rotation. When no energy is added or removed
from the flywheel, it continues to spin at a constant speed (in the
absence of frictional losses), and when energy is removed from the
flywheel, its speed decreases.
JAPAN
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.2
Japan has devised a plan to build recharging stations. MITI's
Ecostation 2000 plan is a two-phase project to add recharging and
alternative fuel stations to some of Japan's approximately 60,000
service stations. In phase one (1993-95), MITI will promote the
medium-range use of EVs by subsidizing the conversion of 100 service
stations (13 in fiscal year 1993). In phase two (1996-2000), MITI
will offer low-interest loans to build 2,000 "ecostations" along
major highways and in cities.
Local governments, such as Osaka and Tokyo, are actively involved in
promoting EVs. By the end of fiscal year 1993, Osaka had built 10
public quick-charging stations that would allow citizens to charge
their batteries in daytime. The aims of the program are to
demonstrate techniques for recharging 50 percent of battery capacity
in 30 minutes and to show that users can recharge on a self-service
basis. To build the stations, Osaka formed the Electric Vehicle
Community System (EVOC) in cooperation with the private sector,
including the automobile company Daihatsu and Japan Storage Battery
Company. Through membership fees, the system rents out EVs and
provides battery maintenance and free use of the charging stations.
EVOC reportedly spent $3.59 million in 1993 to build Osaka's charging
stations and place 100 EVs on the road.
GERMANY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.3
Germany plans a 5-year 60-vehicle demonstration and evaluation on the
Baltic island of R�gen with a budget of about $12.8 million. As of
early September 1993, 23 of the vehicles had been delivered.
Participants include five vehicle manufacturers, four battery
companies, the Federal Ministry for Research and Technology (BMFT),
the German Automobile Society (DAUG), and Dresden College engineers.
Both public citizens and local authorities will drive the cars at
least the minimum mileage established to yield valuable test results.
Research activities comprise evaluations of performance and
reliability of different mixes of battery types and drive systems,
suitability for the routine driving needs of several different
applications, infrastructure needs, and vehicle crash testing to
assess safety. Automobile manufacturers and battery makers were
persuaded to join the project by the variety of testing combinations
of vehicles, batteries, and users. The ultimate goal of this project
is to demonstrate the applicability and suitability of each
manufacturer's product rather than to identify the single best
vehicle or battery.
The Federal Ministry for Research and Technology selected R�gen as
its test site both because its size (25 miles by 25 miles)
corresponds to the distance electric vehicles can travel without
recharging and because it is widely recognized as an environmentally
sensitive refuge for wild birds. Moreover, both its small size and
pristine environment offer a better opportunity to monitor the
environmental benefits of a small number of EVs than would be
possible in a congested city. The range of users includes postal and
utility workers, service and delivery companies, and community
organizations. Specialized service and repair are available at the
test center, and some local mechanics have been trained for routine
maintenance. In addition to overnight recharging stations at each
user's site, a public charging station can be used by authorized
cardholders. However, demonstration project officials have found
that the public charging station has not been used much if at all as
users are content to recharge on-site.
Two other demonstrations are also under way. Project Telekom will
demonstrate 40 electric and hybrid vehicles for 3 years and the
Postal Service began a 2-year test in 1993 of a zinc-air battery
system and infrastructure support with 20 to 25 vans. In December
1994, the Postal Service announced the extension of its program
through 1996 with the purchase of more than 50 Mercedes Benz vans and
light trucks powered by the zinc-air batteries manufactured by the
Electric Fuel Corporation. The manufacturer claims that the
batteries store enough energy to travel for a week without
recharging, which is accomplished by removing the zinc and sending it
to the factory for reprocessing. The total budget for the test is
$14.8 million. The Postal Service and Telekom have signed letters of
intent to purchase as many as 40,000 EVs and batteries if the test is
successful.
FRANCE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.4
France has selected 10 cities to stage demonstrations of 20 to 50
electric cars and vans, complete with recharging and service
stations, financing for purchase, and driver education. One of these
cities, La Rochelle, has been cited as the first EV experiment under
real conditions. In phase I, which began mid-1993, sponsors were to
provide 50 Peugeot Citro�n EVs to local citizens who agreed to
participate for 1 year as data were collected regarding driver
attitudes and behavior, battery function, cost and patterns of
electricity consumption, maintenance, and effect on the urban
environment. If phase I is successful, phase II will add 300 EVs.
In July 1992, French officials from the ministries of the
environment, industry, and foreign commerce signed an important EV
agreement with the French national electricity company, French
automobile manufacturers (Renault and Peugeot Citro�n), and G.I.V.E.,
an interministerial group for EVs. The major objectives of the
agreement are to (1) develop a standard system of battery charging
and equip at least 10 test sites by 1995, (2) design and create a
system to disperse batteries (such as by leasing them) and guarantee
their recycling at the end of their usefulness, (3) establish a
viable EV maintenance system, and (4) conduct education and training.
SWITZERLAND
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.5
The city of Basel has one EV rental agency and one EV repair shop.
The rental agency leases 10 cars from different companies and
countries. All use conventional lead acid batteries with a top speed
of about 45 mph and a range of 50 miles. They recharge with a
conventional Swiss plug at a regular outlet. The rental agency has
several coin-operated recharging stations outside its office where
owners receive free parking while they recharge for about $1.70 per
day. Recently, the rental agency added a courier service to further
promote EVs.
The EV repair shop services all types of EVs and has trained
mechanics in 10 area conventional repair shops. The service manager
reported that the most typical repair problems are the result of
owners overcharging batteries or neglecting to add water to the lead
acid batteries. The owner reported that he has sold 600 EVs but
estimates that only 300 are still in the Basel area. For example,
Czechoslovakian-produced Penguin Skodas are available at a price of
$14,700, including the $2,000 battery. He has replaced several
batteries at considerable expense to keep customers satisfied. He
also noted that, in his opinion, more advanced batteries, such as
nickel cadmium, offer few advantages over current lead acid batteries
at six times the price. For example, a newly purchased taxi with
nickel cadmium batteries costs $60,000, of which $25,000 was for the
batteries.
SWEDEN
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.6
Sweden's three largest cities, Stockholm, Malmo, and Gothenberg, have
EV demonstration projects under way in which the ultimate goal is to
create an initial market for EVs.\14
Gothenberg has the lead in this effort and the most ambitious goals
of 1,000 EVs by 1995 and 10,000 by 2000. Gothenberg officials
initiated this program hoping to break the "vicious circle" in which
there are no products because they are waiting for a market and there
is no market because it is waiting for the products. Toward this
end, the short-term goal is to test 200 electric cars using a systems
approach, in which a large number of cars are tested in a commercial
transport environment. Tests will evaluate the performance of the
cars, infrastructure needs, and local market incentives. In
addition, a monitoring system in each car will record information
about driving, traffic, and recharging patterns.
Sponsors of the project include Renault and Volvo, Vattenfall (the
area electricity producer), Gothenburg Energie (the area electricity
distributor), and the Swedish national government.\15 The first 10
Renault Express vans powered by French SAFT's nickel cadmium
batteries were delivered by Renault's partner, Volvo, in August 1993.
Program officials are particularly interested in testing a new type
of recharging connector manufactured by the French and German company
Marechal. This connector uses springs to create varying amounts of
pressure contact, which then determines recharging voltage and speed.
Thus, the same contact mechanism can be used for three different
charging speeds from very quick to overnight. For example, drivers
can use an electronic money card to gain an additional 31-mile range
with a 30-minute charge at the local public recharging station.
Users are primarily private companies and municipal offices that will
lease cars for 3 years with the requirement that 50 percent of the
initial purchase price of $37,500 will be repaid. Officials noted
that the nickel cadmium battery is expected to last 1,500 cycles
(about 5 years) and that the electricity companies are currently
considering the option of leasing the batteries to customers.\16
Gothenberg has also instituted significant reductions in municipal
parking fees for EVs (from $750 to $6 for 3 years) and will decide
sometime in the next year whether to allow EVs to travel in public
transport lanes and whether to create environmental zones in which
only EVs could drive.
The Stockholm demonstration project is managed by Stockholm Materiel
Procurement, a service organization for the city government, that
recently purchased 12 EVs, mostly Volkswagen Citistromers with lead
acid batteries at a cost of about $41,100. These are leased to
private companies and city offices for $1,370 per month, or about
three times the lease price of $400 for a comparable ICEV. Based on
fleet operating statistics, Stockholm estimates that about 300 of its
1,500-car inventory should be EVs, and it hopes to purchase more at
an estimated future cost of about $24,700.
Sweden's National Board for Industrial and Technical Development
(NUTEK) is planning a large-scale demonstration program for 1993-97
that will use municipal and commercial fleets to test EVs, assess
infrastructure needs, and conduct market surveys. The budget is not
yet final and could range anywhere from $6.8 million to $27 million.
The government hopes to offset consumer costs for batteries by about
50 percent.
--------------------
\14 We did not visit Malmo, but the characteristics of that city's
program are similar to those of Gothenberg and Stockholm.
\15 Vattenfall is owned primarily by the Swedish national government,
and Gothenberg Energie is owned primarily by Gothenberg City.
\16 Nickel cadmium batteries replaced Gothenberg's initial choice of
sodium sulfur batteries when officials considered the much shorter
life cycle of sodium sulfur batteries as less cost-effective than the
nickel cadmium batteries. While the longer range of sodium sulfur
batteries can be useful, those benefits are offset by its short life
cycle only if the car is driven often and far. This is because the
corrosive nature of sodium sulfur batteries also reduces their life.
UNITED KINGDOM
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.7
The 25,000 electric milk vans currently in operation in the United
Kingdom constitute a credible demonstration of the use of
electrically propelled, slow speed service vehicles. However, their
numbers are dwindling and their technology is dated. The government
officials we interviewed did not anticipate any new EV demonstrations
in the near future.
ITALY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.8
Small demonstrations (from a few up to 20 EVs) have been conducted by
municipal governments and public organizations. Italian officials
representing the nonministerial Agency for New Technology, Energy,
and the Environment (ENEA) reported that some of these demonstrations
have been less than successful. For example, ENEA had demonstrated 6
Fiat Panda EVs that it described as very expensive with poor
performance and reliability. ENEA staff eventually refused to drive
them.
Two public EV bus demonstrations are conducted in Rome (8 minibuses)
and Trento (3 to 6 buses) by local Municipal Transport Authorities.
Rome Transport Authority plans to introduce a larger fleet of 50
minibuses with the financial support of the regional government.
Fiat has sponsored a rental program in Livorno Township with 5
passenger EVs.
VEHICLE AND BATTERY RESEARCH
AND DEVELOPMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4
In this section, we discuss what we learned about major international
vehicle and battery research and development programs. In addition
to these nationally sponsored programs, many individual battery and
vehicle manufacturers conduct their own research. Because they are
proprietary, little information is available about these efforts.
UNITED STATES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4.1
In an effort to improve upon current battery technology, USABC was
formed in 1991 as a cooperative venture between industry and
government. The major partners include Chrysler, Ford, General
Motors, the Electric Power Research Institute, and DOE. Funding for
a 5-year period is $262 million divided evenly between government and
industry.
To date, six of an anticipated seven research contracts have been
made final for the development of nickel metal hydride, sodium
sulfur, and two types of lithium batteries. Total funding amounts to
date for the six contracts are $40.6 million for the two nickel metal
hydride contracts, $12.1 million for the one sodium sulfur contract,
and $77.6 million for the three lithium contracts. In addition,
eight cooperative research and development agreements funded at $18.9
million guide efforts at five U.S. national laboratories. USABC has
both mid-term and long-term objectives to be met by the end of fiscal
year 1995. The intent of USABC is to develop by 1995 an advanced
battery to meet mid-term performance criteria with pilot prototype
production capability by 1996 and full-scale production by 2000 and
to demonstrate the technical feasibility of an advanced battery that
meets the long-term criteria by 1996. The technical criteria for
battery development specify required power-to-weight ratios for
acceleration, energy-to-weight and energy-to-volume ratios for range,
overall battery lifetime, and cost. (See appendix III.) Other
criteria, such as safety and recyclability, are also considered.
USABC funds advanced batteries, and many experts believe that none of
the three currently funded battery types will be ready for
large-scale commercial use before 2000 and that lithium batteries may
take until 2010 or longer.
JAPAN
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4.2
Japan is the only country that appears to have a national battery
research and development budget on a par with U.S. efforts. With an
aim to upgrade the performance and lower the cost of EV batteries,
MITI's Agency of Industrial Science and Technology has two research
projects to improve battery energy storage technology. In fiscal
year 1992, the agency launched a 10-year, $125.6 million project to
develop lithium batteries for EV and consumer electronics use.
Administered by NEDO, the project brings together 11 companies in a
lithium battery research and development consortium similar to USABC.
MITI allocated $6.2 million in fiscal year 1993 for research and
development on battery technology. In addition, several Agency of
Industrial Science and Technology laboratories are conducting
research and development in support of corporate participants. In
tandem with its lithium research goals, NEDO also administers a
4-year (1992-95) project to develop a polymer electrolytic fuel cell
for use with durable lithium batteries. Funds are reported to be
$8.9 million, with $359,000 for fiscal year 1992. MITI aims to have
the resulting high-performance batteries mass produced at low cost
within 3 years of their development.
GERMANY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4.3
In November 1993, USABC awarded a $12.1 million contract to Germany's
Silent Power GmbH to develop and produce sodium sulfur batteries.
Silent Power has research and development facilities in Pennsylvania,
Utah, and the United Kingdom. The contract obliges Silent Power to
locate production facilities in the United States as a market
develops for the battery technology. Until 1992, BMFT subsidized the
development of sodium sulfur batteries by ABB, which is developing
mass production techniques for EV batteries, and the German
government has refocused its efforts to EV demonstration and
evaluation programs.
FRANCE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4.4
At the national level, ADEME supports battery and fuel cell research.
The French battery company SAFT is one of the foremost manufacturers
of nickel cadmium batteries; it plans to mass produce its vented-type
nickel cadmium batteries so as to reduce manufacturing costs. SAFT
has received two USABC contracts. A midterm nickel metal hydride
project is funded at $18.1 million and a long-term lithium iron
disulfide project is funded at $17.3 million. Research continues on
sealed-type nickel cadmium batteries, nickel zinc batteries, aluminum
air batteries, hydrogen air fuel cells, and methanol air fuel cells.
SWITZERLAND
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4.5
Switzerland does not provide research and development funding at the
level of many other countries. Rather, the Ministry of the
Environment's technology support program DIANE provides financial
support to selected technologies that are sufficiently developed that
small incremental funding can have a large effect. EVs are
identified as one such technology and are funded at $1.4 million per
year. Each project can be subsidized by the national government at
30 percent of costs, with the regional cantons supplying an
additional 20 percent maximum and private industry the remaining 50
percent of costs. The Swiss Federal Office for Energy Economy
provided $2.8 million for 1991-94 for safety and crash test research
in the types of lightweight, plastic resin EVs for which Swiss
producers are well known.
While funding amounts are relatively small compared to the United
States and Japan, small Swiss manufacturers are considered by many to
hold much promise in the development of purpose-built EVs. These EVs
are constructed from lightweight, high-strength plastic resins that
are expected to eliminate some of the weight problems associated with
converting ICEVs into EVs.
SWEDEN
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4.6
NUTEK has funded EV-related research and development at about $1
million per year since the 1970's. Most grants are provided to
universities that work in conjunction with Volvo. In prior years,
most of the funding went to battery research, but interest has
shifted to electric drive systems and infrastructure, especially
quick-charge technologies.
We interviewed engineers at Cattella Generics, an independent battery
testing company based in Stockholm. These experts reiterated
Sweden's interest in quick-charging capabilities. From extensive
experience with batteries, it is their opinion that the prohibitive
cost (and substantially increased weight) of a battery with enough
energy to increase range significantly is not justified when one
considers how infrequently the additional range is actually needed or
used. Quick-charge technology would extend range only when needed.
These experts also noted that although all batteries deteriorate
slightly as a result of normal recharging, and extensively with
improper recharging, comparatively little money and attention are
devoted to the charging apparatus itself.
UNITED KINGDOM
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4.7
The United Kingdom once had a longstanding commitment to EVs.
However, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of
Transport subsidies began to fall when large off-shore oil reserves
were discovered. By 1989, no funds were devoted to EVs. Officials
spoke of a waning interest in marketing EVs at home after many years
of substantial research and development investment. Today, all
funding for EVs comes from private sources, which hope to introduce
products into the U.S. market in the near future.
Several companies based in the United Kingdom have forged
relationships with other foreign corporations. For example,
International Automotive Design joined with Sweden's CAT to develop
the hybrid LA301 car, scheduled for production in the Los Angeles EV
program. Beta R&D has developed a sodium nickel chloride battery
that will be commercialized with help from partners in Germany's AEG,
a subsidiary of Daimler-Benz. Chloride Ltd. and its subsidiaries
will produce and market (including to Ford) a sodium sulfur battery
in a joint venture with Germany's electric power company, RWE. The
United Kingdom's research and development division of Silent Power
received a joint USABC sodium sulfur contract with the German Silent
Power GmbH in November 1993.
ITALY
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4.8
The Italian EV program is managed cooperatively by Fiat, the
ministries of environment and industry, and the national electric
power company (ENEL). The goals of the program are to (1) retrofit
existing gasoline cars with batteries and (2) conduct research
devoted to a battery breakthrough.
Primary funding for EV development comes from ENEA. Between 1980 and
1987, this agency and the National Council of Research (CNR) provided
about $11.2 million to support both near-term battery research (lead
acid, nickel cadmium, and nickel iron) and advanced battery research
(sodium sulfur, lithium, and supercapacitors). Each year since 1986,
the agency has provided an additional $700,000 in a parallel effort
in cooperation with industry, research centers, and fleet users for
field and bench testing of EVs and batteries. In September 1992, its
proposed EV budget for the next 3 years totaled more than $35
million; however, some doubt exists that full funding will be
available.
Italy's transportation sector has devoted about $3.5 million to
vehicles and $7 million to hybrid vehicle development and EV
applications in urban areas. Italy's 3-year environment plan
reserves about $9.8 million for local public authorities to monitor
EVs and the environment. In 1992, ENEL was scheduled to begin a $42
million program for the development of stationary and mobile
electrical energy storage systems. The program costs are shared with
battery and vehicle manufacturers, and about $7 million is devoted to
EV development. The battery program focuses on sodium sulfur,
lithium aluminum, and iron sulfur batteries. The aim is to introduce
and adopt the latest overseas manufacturing technologies in Italy.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:5
The foreign EV efforts we reviewed varied in terms of the scope and
maturity of their major EV production efforts as well as in the type
and amount of national funding for EV research and development and
promotion and demonstration programs. Of the countries we reviewed,
we found that EV programs in Japan, Germany, France, and Switzerland
have elements that are different from those in the United States.
Officials in all nations except Japan noted the difficulty in
obtaining EVs in sufficient numbers for tests and demonstrations.
Japanese officials do not foresee a large personal consumer EV market
in their country in the near future. Japanese automobile
manufacturers do, however, plan to market in the U.S.- mandated
markets. Toward that end, the Japanese national government provides
research and development funding to major automobile and battery
manufacturers, and large-scale demonstration projects are funded at
both the national and local levels. Municipal governments throughout
Japan have committed to fleet purchases and cost subsidies in a move
toward both popularizing EVs and reducing production costs.
Germany and France, in contrast, have greatly reduced or eliminated
their research and development budgets and are moving toward national
funding of large-scale demonstration projects. France has initiated
a 10-city project with 20 to 50 EVs per city, recharging stations,
purchase incentives, and driver education programs. Germany recently
began a 60-vehicle demonstration on R�gen, a tourist island on the
Baltic coast. The program highlights extensive data collection and
evaluation of different combinations of drive systems and batteries
as well as actual vehicle crash testing. Switzerland also has some
pilot EV infrastructure in place. But more importantly, Swiss
automobile manufacturers are advancing the design of purpose-built,
lightweight EVs that eliminate many of the problems associated with
simply converting ICEVs into EVs.
These substantial efforts notwithstanding, the international EV
industry is looking toward the United States as manufacturers await a
battery breakthrough from USABC. However, the progress of developing
EV batteries--or any new technology--cannot be predicted with great
certainty. Although a technical breakthrough could occur at any
time, we believe from our literature review and interviews with
experts that none of the three USABC advanced battery types are
likely to be ready for large-scale commercial use for the 1998 state
mandates. In particular, sodium sulfur and nickel metal hydride
batteries are unlikely to be fully developed technically before 2000,
and lithium batteries may take until 2010 or longer.
From a policy perspective, foreign governments are also looking
toward the United States as they await the 1998 California and
northeastern state mandates. Yet, in the United States, federal and
state EV program managers are experiencing difficulties finding EVs
in sufficient numbers for meaningful demonstrations, and technical
and program supports appear to be less than what would be required
for success. Within the U.S. federal fleet, only 10 of 15,000
planned AFV purchases will be EVs.
In sum, in direct contrast to many of the countries we visited, the
United States has devoted proportionately less of its money and
attention to comprehensive EV demonstration and promotion programs or
infrastructure needs assessment and development.
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL EFFECTS:
ECONOMICS, ENERGY, AND THE
ENVIRONMENT
============================================================ Chapter 4
INTRODUCTION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1
While industrial policy appears to influence the level and type of EV
funding, officials indicated that national and regional distinctions
in energy and environmental issues often underlie a nation's interest
in EVs as a solution to its own energy security and air quality
problems. Thus, in this chapter, we address our third evaluation
question: What are the likely effects of introducing EVs in a nation
or region in terms of costs to the individual, national energy
savings, and environmental effects? We considered costs likely to
arise from owning and operating an EV in different nations. As for
effectiveness, we looked at potential effects on energy savings and
on pollution reductions at the national level. We also examined the
potential range of regional environmental effects using the few
region-specific studies we obtained.
We begin our discussion with an analysis of likely EV purchase costs
in the near term and the more distant future. We present data that
estimate the total consumer costs to own and operate an EV in the
nations we reviewed. Next, we focus on the potential effect of EVs
on energy consumption and imported oil dependence in the nations we
reviewed, providing transportation and petroleum use statistics for
each nation and then analyzing how EVs might produce total energy
savings, petroleum savings, and petroleum independence if they
replace gasoline-powered ICEVs. This is followed by a discussion of
each nation's pollution statistics and fuel mixes for electricity
generation and how these factors might influence the potential effect
of EV use on air pollution. Finally, we use data from four U.S.
cities with different electricity fuel mixes and air pollution
problems to demonstrate the potential range and magnitude of the
effects of EVs for urban areas in the United States.
COSTS TO OWN AND OPERATE EVS IN
DIFFERENT NATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2
High cost is the greatest obstacle for private consumers who want to
purchase EVs. EV costs can be considered in two ways: the price to
purchase an EV (initial cost) and the cost to purchase, fuel, and
maintain an EV over its lifetime (life-cycle cost).
INITIAL COSTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2.1
Data showing the effects of production volume on initial purchase
price do exist, but they are difficult to obtain and validate because
they are proprietary to manufacturers. Even when sympathetic
manufacturers volunteer such data, they often contain large
information gaps. We did find one price-volume analysis that used
data provided by an EV manufacturer who has relatively extensive
experience producing EVs.
In a report prepared for the German parliament, the Ministry of
Transportation calculated initial purchase price changes as annual
production increases to 100,000 vehicles for a midsized, four-seater
electric Volkswagen Citistromer equipped with a lead gel battery.\1
The Citistromer is currently produced by hand in annual volumes of
fewer than 100 vehicles at a consumer cost of $42,700, or nearly
three times more than the ICEV version, which sells for $15,500. As
table 4.1 illustrates, the manufacturer expects initial prices to
fall steadily until production reaches 100,000, when the EVs are
predicted to reach their ultimate price. The largest cost reductions
are realized as production moves from handbuilt vehicles to annual
production rates of 5,000 vehicles. However, even at a production
volume of 100,000 vehicles, the EV's initial cost would remain about
18 percent higher than that of the ICEV, or $18,250.
Table 4.1
Initial Purchase Price of Electric
Citistromers as a Function of Annual
Production Level
Initial
price Comparison
Annual production rate reduction to ICEV cost
------------------------------------------ ------------ ------------
Hand built 0 280%
1,000 -15% 238
5,000 -34 185
10,000 -38 174
50,000 -45 154
100,000 -58 118
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: "Unterrichtung durch die Bundersregierung: Vierte
Fortschreibung des Berichtes �ber die F�rderung des Einsatzes von
Elektrofahrzeugen," publication 12.3222, German Federal Parliament,
session 12, Bonn, September 7, 1992.
These data are specific to the Volkswagen Citistromer with a lead gel
battery. Since lead-based batteries are the least expensive of the
various battery technologies, Citistromer purchase prices would be
considerably higher if equipped with different batteries. This fact
hampered our ability to generalize Citistromer cost projections to
those for other EVs using different batteries.
We did, however, find a Japanese analysis of the effects of economies
of scale on the costs to manufacture different batteries.\2 The
research was sponsored by MITI and conducted jointly by the Institute
of Applied Energy and NEDO. The cost projections considered both
economies of scale (for example, by calculating changes in prices of
raw materials and overhead costs at higher purchase volumes) and
learning economies (for example, by factoring in projected
improvements in manufacturing processes). The analysis also
considered two important operational factors that influence battery
cost: energy capacity and cycle life. As we noted in our discussion
of battery technology in chapter 2, energy capacity (the total number
of energy units in a battery) reflects range, and cycle life reflects
the total number of times that a battery can be recharged before it
must be replaced. Together, energy capacity and cycle life affect
the total lifetime driving distance of a battery. Table 4.2 shows
how differences in both costs per unit of energy and battery
specifications affect consumers' initial battery costs and the costs
to travel a specified distance (in our example, 100,000 total miles).
Table 4.2
Battery Cost Per Driving Distance\a
Sodiu Nicke
m l Nicke
sulfu cadmi l Lead
r um iron acid
------------------------------------------ ----- ----- ----- -----
1. Cost per kWh
Producing 1,000 $875 $529 $624 $119
Producing 100,000 $172 $345 $332 $ 89
2.Battery capacity (kWh) 44.0 41.6 41.9 28.1
3.Total battery cost\b $38,5 $22,0 $26,1 $3,34
Producing 1,000 00 06 46 4
Producing 100,000 $7,56 $14,3 $13,9 $2,50
8 52 11 1
4.Operating range (urban miles) 100 75 75 55
Cycle life 500 500
Driving distance\c 50,00 2,000 2,000 26,50
0 150,0 150,0 0
00 00
5.Number of batteries\d 2.00 0.67 0.67 3.64
6.Cost for 100,000 miles\e $77,0 $14,6 $17,4 $12,1
Producing 1,000 00 71 30 60
Producing 100,000 $15,1 $9,56 $9,27 $
36 8 4 9,094
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Battery capacity is a function of specific energy (measured in
Wh/kg) and a reflection of the amount of energy per unit of weight
and battery size (kg). Battery capacity is specified by the
manufacturer and varies as a function of vehicle type or required
range. Range is a function of battery capacity and vehicle
efficiency, as well as other variable factors, such as use of climate
controls and type and speed of driving. The vehicle efficiency (in
kWh/km) varies in this analysis from .365 for lead acid to .387 for
nickel iron batteries and is based on a compact van with gasoline
mileage of 22 mpg driving in an urban environment without
air-conditioning or heat.
The values for this table were derived directly from the Japanese
analysis except for the correction based on DOE's technical comments,
in which it noted an unrealistic battery capacity for sodium sulfur.
This battery's capacity was originally reported as 85.7 kWh, which is
not consistent with the requirements for a compact van with a
reasonable operating range of 100 urban miles. We believe the
original analyses failed to consider that the high specific energy of
sodium sulfur batteries allows for substantial weight reduction for
these batteries compared to the others. Because the battery capacity
ultimately affects price, we reduced the Japanese estimate by almost
half. Our estimate is roughly consistent with the energy capacity of
the Ford Ecostar's sodium sulfur battery (40 kWh).
\b Total battery cost = battery capacity x cost per kilowatt hour.
\c Driving distance = range x cycle life.
\d Assumes purchaser could return the unused remainder of a battery
at 100,000 miles.
\e Cost for 100,000 miles = (100,000 miles/driving distance) x total
cost.
At a low production rate of 1,000 sets per year, the consumer cost
per unit of energy (kWh) of sodium sulfur batteries is expected to be
more than seven times higher than that of lead acid; the costs of
nickel cadmium and nickel iron batteries should be between four and
five times higher than lead acid.\3
At a high production rate of 100,000 sets per year, the costs per
unit of energy of the four batteries would all be reduced. Lead acid
batteries would incur a 25-percent reduction; sodium sulfur
batteries, an 80-percent reduction; nickel iron batteries, a
47-percent reduction; and nickel cadmium batteries, a 35-percent
reduction. In relative terms, costs per unit of energy of sodium
sulfur batteries would be about twice those of lead acid batteries
and the nickel based batteries about quadruple.
As for economies of scale, the Japanese expect that increasing
production rates of sodium sulfur batteries would introduce
significant cost reductions in raw materials and manufacturing.
Nickel cadmium and nickel iron batteries would benefit most from
decreased manufacturing costs. Lead acid batteries would not gain
much from increased production rates as they use low-cost, abundant
materials and would be manufactured by an already established
technology.
Thus, when price per unit of energy is considered, the sealed lead
acid battery is by far the least expensive alternative. However,
price per unit of energy is not the only contributor to the ultimate
price of batteries. The four battery types vary considerably in
terms of energy capacity. The amount of energy that is contained in
the battery sets varies from 44 kilowatt hours for sodium sulfur
batteries to about 28 kilowatt hours for lead acid batteries. The
cost to purchase a complete battery set depends upon the cost per
unit of energy and the battery capacity, or the total number of
energy units contained in the battery set (see table 4.2, row 1).
The cost to purchase a complete battery set varies considerably for
the four batteries (row 3). At production volumes of 1,000 annually,
sodium sulfur batteries are anticipated to cost $77,000 each. The
nickel-based batteries would cost between about 60 and 70 percent and
lead acid batteries would cost about 9 percent of the price of a
sodium sulfur battery. However, these price ratios change radically
at production volumes of 100,000 annually: the nickel batteries
would cost most at between $13,900 and $14,350. Sodium sulfur
batteries would cost about 50 percent ($7,600) and lead acid about 20
percent ($2,500) of the cost of nickel batteries.
One final factor affects the true price of a battery: the total
driving distance before the battery requires replacement. The total
driving distance of the battery takes into account its range on a
single charge and cycle life, or the number of times it can be
recharged (row 4). The total driving distances range from about
150,000 miles for nickel cadmium and nickel iron batteries to about
26,500 miles for lead acid batteries. A sodium sulfur battery has a
total driving distance of about 50,000 miles. When these factors are
considered, the relative costs of the four batteries are much
different than when purchase prices are compared.
We calculated the total number of batteries (row 5) and the total
costs of those batteries that would be required to travel a total of
100,000 miles (row 6). We prorated battery costs. For example, the
driving distance for the lead acid battery was estimated at 26,500
miles; thus, we included costs for only 3-2/3 lead acid batteries
with the assumption that the purchaser could recover the full value
for the 1/3 of the fourth battery's life that remained after 100,000
miles.\4
In general, it will always cost more initially to purchase a battery
with extended range because extended range requires more energy
capacity (energy units) within the battery. But overall operating
costs can be offset considerably by how many times the battery can be
recharged in its lifetime. For example, at production volumes of
100,000 batteries annually, the initial costs of nickel cadmium and
nickel iron batteries are nearly six times higher than the cost of a
lead acid battery (row 3), but these are offset by total lifetime
driving distances, which are also nearly six times longer than the
lead acid battery (row 4). In other words, while nickel cadmium and
nickel iron batteries will cost more to purchase, they will last
longer than the lead acid batteries. This offset is less good for
the sodium sulfur battery: its initial cost is three times more than
lead acid's, but its total driving life is only 1.9 times as long as
lead acid's. Thus, a sodium sulfur battery's cost per driving
distance is about 65-percent more than that of a lead acid battery's
cost. If only 1,000 lead acid and sodium sulfur batteries are
produced annually, the costs to travel 100,000 miles with sodium
sulfur batteries would be about $77,000, or six times more than the
lead acid batteries' costs of $12,160.
The final step in our analysis combined the German Citistromer cost
analysis with the Japanese battery analysis. From this synthesis
emerged a more general picture of likely purchase costs for a wider
range of EVs than has typically been available publicly. Our
analysis is based on several assumptions. First, we considered only
two production volumes for the base vehicles and batteries: 1,000
and 100,000 per year. Second, we subtracted the cost of the
Citistromer battery from the total purchase price and assumed that
the vehicle could accommodate the four different advanced battery
types. The current Citistromer battery contains only 18 kilowatt
hours of power. Because energy capacity affects range, we assumed
that the Citistromer would incorporate advanced batteries when they
become available. Using the battery prices from the Japanese
analysis and the vehicle prices from the German analysis, we
calculated the total current cost to purchase the Citistromer and
enough batteries to drive 100,000 miles. Figure 4.1 compares our
estimates of the costs of the EV Citistromer with the different
battery types at production volumes of 1,000 and 100,000 per year
with the costs of a comparable ICEV Citistromer. From our
calculations, we found that ICEV costs will remain lower than EV
costs--even at high-volume production.
Figure 4.1: Total Lifetime
Purchase Costs to Travel
100,000 Miles in a Citistromer
by Battery Type and Production
Volume\a
(See figure in printed
edition.)
\a NaS = sodium sulfur; NiFe = nickel iron; NiCd = nickel cadmium;
PbA = lead acid.
The cost of the vehicle without a battery at low production volumes
is estimated to be $33,000, compared to $15,500 for a complete ICEV.
At low production volumes, the cost to travel 100,000 miles in a
vehicle equipped with sodium sulfur batteries would be
extraordinarily high at $110,000.\5 With nickel iron batteries, the
cost would be about $50,400; with nickel cadmium batteries, about
$47,700; and with lead acid batteries, about $45,200.
At annual production volumes of 100,000, the vehicle without a
battery is expected to be $14,000, making total costs with sodium
sulfur batteries $29,100; with nickel iron batteries, $23,300; with
nickel cadmium batteries, $23,700; and with lead acid batteries,
$23,100.
--------------------
\1 Costs include lead gel batteries estimated to cost about $5,570
currently and decrease to about $3,900 at higher production volumes.
\2 H. Hasuike et al., "Economic Study on Advanced Batteries for
Electric Vehicles," in The 11th International Vehicle Symposium
Proceedings, vol. 2 (Florence, Italy: September 1992).
\3 As a point of comparison, current EV lead acid batteries (vented
type PbA) are produced at a rate of 100 sets per year in Japan at a
cost of 18 cents per watt hour (Wh). Total price per set is
calculated by multiplying cost per unit of energy in watt hours
($/Wh) by battery capacity in kilowatt hours (kWh/set). A kilowatt
hour is 1,000 watt hours. Thus, at 18 cents per watt hour and a
capacity of 28.14 kWh per set, the cost of current vented PbA
batteries is $5,116 per set (.18 x 28.14 x 1,000 = 5,116).
\4 We did the same for the nickel-based batteries by including the
costs of only 2/3 of either a nickel cadmium or nickel iron battery.
\5 These estimates are derived from tables 4.1 and 4.2 but may not
match exactly because of rounding.
LIFE-CYCLE COSTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2.2
Life-cycle costs consider both the initial costs to the consumer and
the costs to operate and maintain the vehicle. While initial
purchase costs are regarded as a universal barrier to the consumer,
many of the experts we interviewed expect the costs to maintain and
fuel an EV to be considerably less than comparable costs for an ICEV.
However, the costs to fuel EVs and ICEVs vary considerably depending
on a nation's gasoline and electricity costs.
We used actual electricity and gasoline prices in the eight nations
when we compared the estimated life-cycle costs of the EV and ICEV.
From our review of the literature and interviews with electricity
utility officials, we assumed an electricity price reduction of a
third for off-peak recharging to reflect likely incentives as EVs
create a sizable market for alternative uses of electricity.\6
Maintenance costs are expected to be less for EVs; the Citistromer is
estimated to cost approximately 4 cents per mile for the EV and 6
cents per mile for the ICEV. We reasoned that maintenance costs
would be comparable across the eight nations we reviewed. Similarly,
we reasoned that initial costs to purchase the Citistromer and
batteries would be the same in these nations.\7 We used the least
expensive battery (lead acid) at production volumes of 1,000 to model
likely near-term conditions and 100,000 to model likely final
conditions.
Thus, in our analyses, differences in the costs to own and operate an
EV or an ICEV in a given nation stem from differences in initial
costs, maintenance costs, and operating costs. However, any
differences across nations in the costs to own and operate an EV or
an ICEV stem solely from the costs of electricity and gasoline in
these nations.
Figure 4.2 illustrates the likely near-term life-cycle costs of the
EV and ICEV in each of the eight nations. Life-cycle costs for EVs
at low production volumes would be considerably higher than those of
ICEVs in all nations and would range from more than twice the cost in
the United States to about a third higher in Sweden and Italy.
Generally, the high initial purchase costs that could be expected at
low production volumes greatly offset any benefits that might be
realized by lower EV operating costs.
Figure 4.2: Near-Term
Life-Cycle Costs of EVs and
ICEVs\ a
(See figure in printed
edition.)
\a Annual production volume is 1,000.
In contrast, figure 4.3 presents likely final conditions at high
production volumes. In this analysis, the initial purchase cost is
assumed to be considerably lower than it is at low production volumes
and begins to approach that of the ICEV. Thus, the benefits of lower
fueling costs are realized for nations with high ratios of gasoline
to electricity costs. These would include all nations except the
United States, where gasoline costs less and the ratio of gasoline to
electricity costs is lower. Indeed, the United States is the only
nation of the eight where the life-cycle costs of EVs would likely
remain higher than those of comparable ICEVs. These findings
correspond well with estimates suggesting that gasoline would have to
cost more than $4.00 per gallon before the costs of owning and
operating an EV powered by batteries meeting the USABC midterm
criteria would approach those of an ICEV.\8 The break-even gasoline
price for EVs powered by batteries meeting the USABC long-term
criteria (such as lithium batteries) is estimated at about $1.70 per
gallon.
Figure 4.3: Final Life-Cycle
Costs of EVs and ICEVs\ a
(See figure in printed
edition.)
\a Annual production volume is 100,000.
--------------------
\6 Costs of daytime "opportunity" charging may be substantially
higher than nighttime rates and could be as high as $0.50 per kWh in
the United States to discourage high use during peak daytime hours.
\7 As we noted in chapter 3, financial purchase or tax incentives
differ across nations; we did not include these in this analysis.
\8 See International Energy Agency, Electric Vehicles: Technology,
Performance and Potential (Paris, France: 1993) for an economic
analysis that models additional factors that may affect the ultimate
purchase and operating costs of EVs and ICEVs (for example,
insurance, taxes, registration, and home recharging stations).
CONCLUSIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2.3
Our analyses assumed that the costs of EVs--either the entire vehicle
or the battery alone--would decrease as production levels increase,
because of the effects of economies of scale and learning on the
manufacturing process. While battery costs would remain the greatest
contributor to the total costs of EVs, we estimate that different
types of batteries would command widely different prices that could,
in part, be offset by differences in their overall lifetime. It
appears that total purchase costs of the vehicle and its batteries
for all battery types will be substantially higher than comparable
ICEV costs at low production volumes, but as production volumes
increase the costs of EVs equipped with all but sodium sulfur
batteries will begin to approach those of ICEVs.
As a result of high purchase costs, near-term costs to own and
operate an EV are likely to be significantly higher than those of
ICEVs in every nation we reviewed. However, assuming that EV
purchase prices will decrease substantially and that electricity
utilities will institute widespread residential off-peak rates, the
costs to own and operate an EV would be lower than the costs of a
comparable ICEV in every nation except the United States, where
gasoline costs less and the ratio of gasoline to electricity prices
is lower.
EV EFFECTS ON ENERGY
INDEPENDENCE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:3
OECD estimates that in 1990 the net imports of oil for the nations we
reviewed were nearly 930 million tons, with the United States
importing more than a third of the total, or 369 million tons.\9 In
this section, we examine the potential effects of introducing EVs on
a nation's energy use and energy independence. We collected and
analyzed transportation and energy data compiled by supranational
organizations, such as OECD and IEA. We combined these data with
statistics concerning the energy effects of introducing EVs in the
nations we reviewed (except Switzerland, for which no EV energy
effect data were available). Specifically, we calculate the probable
savings in energy consumption generally and oil consumption
specifically as a result of introducing EVs in each nation based on
the amount of oil currently used in both road transport and
electricity generation.
--------------------
\9 OECD actually provides energy statistics in million metric tons of
oil equivalent (Mtoe) so that comparisons can be made among different
primary energy sources and energy generation processes. One Mtoe of
oil equals, within a few percent, the net heat content of one million
tons of crude oil. One Mtoe is equal to 7.35 million barrels of oil.
NATIONS' TRANSPORTATION
STATISTICS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:3.1
As table 4.3 illustrates, the United States leads the world in total
number of automobiles registered, population per vehicle, and
percentage of total petroleum consumed by its road transportation
sector (56 percent). In absolute terms, the U.S. road
transportation sector consumed 368 million metric tons of petroleum
products in 1990.
Table 4.3
Transportation Statistics for Eight
Nations, 1990
Percent of
Passenger total
and petroleum
commercial consumptio
vehicle Population n used by
registrati per road
Nation on vehicle transport
---------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Switzerland 3,297,237 2.0 37%
Sweden 3,924,633 2.1 44
United Kingdom 26,301,748 2.2 54
France 28,460,000 2.0 46
Italy 29,727,000 1.9 48
Germany\a
Federal Republic 32,684,490 1.9 42
Democratic Republic 5,591,784 2.9 \b
Japan 57,697,669 2.1 35
United States 188,655,46 1.3 56
2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Statistics are presented in the literature separately for the two
Germanys; thus combining them might be misleading.
\b Not available.
Source: Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association of the United
States, World Motor Vehicle Data (1992); International Energy Agency,
Energy Statistics of OECD Countries, 1989-1990 (Paris, France:
1992).
Japan had the second highest number of cars registered in 1990, yet,
relative to the United States, Japan registered less than one third
the number of automobiles, and its road transport sector consumed
only 35 percent of its total oil supply. In absolute terms, Japan's
road transport sector consumed more petroleum than any other nation's
except the United States. However, its consumption of 57 million
metric tons was only 15 percent of the amount consumed by the U.S.
transport sector.
The number of persons per vehicle in the seven other nations is much
higher than that in the United States. Many households in Europe and
Japan own only one car. Most of the nations we reviewed have
well-developed intra- and intercity public transportation systems
that make the personal automobile less necessary for mobility than it
is in some U.S. cities. The dominant trend in U.S. road
transportation over the last century has been the rise of the
automobile as the principal form of travel. While many metropolitan
areas have extensive public transportation systems, the preferred
form of transportation for most Americans is still their own
automobile. In 1990, total personal passenger vehicle miles traveled
in the United States exceeded 1.5 trillion miles and consumed nearly
73 billion gallons of fuel, or 54 percent of the total road
transportation sector's motor fuel consumption.
ESTIMATES OF EV EFFECTS ON
ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND
INDEPENDENCE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:3.2
EVs would reduce energy consumption if they consumed less energy in
the form of electricity than ICEVs consumed in the form of gasoline.
EVs would reduce petroleum consumption if they were recharged by
electricity produced by sources other than petroleum. EVs would
increase petroleum independence if their use resulted in decreases in
net oil imports.
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 4:3.2.1
With regard to energy consumption, OECD compared the total amount of
primary energy (that is, petroleum in oil fields, coal in coal mines,
or natural gas in gas fields) required to travel a kilometer in
either an EV or an ICEV.\10 Primary energy consumption considers the
fuel efficiencies of vehicles themselves as well as the energy
efficiencies of converting primary fuels into usable end products
(gasoline and electricity). For ICEVs, this would include energy
losses associated with extracting, refining, and transporting
petroleum as well as the major energy loss that occurs during
gasoline combustion in the engine. For EVs, the major energy loss
occurs during electricity generation at power plants, but losses
through power transmission, the charger, battery, controller, motor,
and transmission also contribute.
Three different electricity fuel sources are considered: coal,
natural gas, and oil. Results of the analyses for small vans are
shown in table 4.4 for two different compact vans: low-performance
EVs (for example, sodium sulfur batteries using .65 kWh per mile that
meet the USABC midterm criteria) compared to high fuel economy ICEVs
(28 mpg) and high-performance EVs (for example, lithium batteries
using .41 kWh per mile that meet the USABC long-term criteria) and
low fuel economy ICEVs (21 mpg).\11 OECD made these comparisons to
illustrate the likely best and worst case scenarios.
Table 4.4
Changes in Primary Energy Consumption by
EVs Relative to ICEV Energy
Consumption\a
Nation Coal Natural gas Oil Coal Natural gas Oil
------------------ ------ ------------ ------- ------ ------------ -------
France 27.3% -14.4% 51.5% - -59.8% -28.8%
40.2%
Germany 27.3 37.5 10.9 -40.2 -35.4 -47.9
Italy 20.1 26.0 29.9 -43.6 -40.8 -39.0
Japan 2.5 10.6 8.2 -51.8 -48.0 -49.1
Sweden 121.2 126.8 89.4 3.9 6.6 -11.0
United Kingdom 31.3 74.5 42.1 -38.3 -18.0 -33.3
United States 27.3 33.4 33.7 -40.2 -37.3 -37.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a A negative percentage indicates that EVs decrease primary energy
consumption. A positive percentage indicates that EVs increase
primary energy consumption. These calculations are based on a model
developed by Q. Wang and M. A. DeLuchi ("Impacts of Electric
Vehicles on Primary Energy Consumption and Petroleum Displacement,"
Energy, 17 (1992), 351-66) that predicts EV electricity consumption
based on the fuel economy of a comparable ICEV, EV power train
efficiency relative to ICEV power train efficiency, EV battery and
charger efficiencies, and the energy efficiency penalty of added EV
weight. Power plant conversion and distribution efficiencies are
from D. Sperling and M. D. DeLuchi ("Alternative Fuels and Air
Pollution Impacts," prepared for OECD by the Institute of
Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis California,
1991) and range from a low of 19 percent for coal-fired plants in
Sweden to a high of 53 percent for gas-fired plants in France.
Source: OECD, Electric Vehicles: Technology, Performance and
Potential (Paris, France: 1993).
Thus, EVs that meet the USABC midterm criteria may fare poorly in
terms of the amount of primary energy they would consume in the form
of electricity compared to the amount of primary energy that would be
consumed in the form of gasoline by an ICEV with high fuel economy.
Sweden could be expected to incur the largest increases in primary
energy consumption, and only France might reduce primary energy
consumption with EVs, providing they are powered by electricity
produced from natural gas.
If EVs achieve the high performance goals set by the USABC and ICEVs
do not achieve a markedly better fuel economy than they have today,
then EVs will significantly reduce primary energy consumption
relative to ICEVs in all nations using all electricity generation
sources except for those EVs powered by coal- or natural
gas-generated electricity in Sweden.
Thus, reductions in primary energy consumption are based primarily on
EV technology, ICEV fuel economy, and power-plant efficiency. While
it is not known at this time the extent to which EVs or ICEVs will
achieve their respective performance goals, it appears reasonable to
assume that EVs would be more likely to realize greater improvements
than ICEVs simply because EVs are less advanced technically than
ICEVs and thus have greater room for improvement. The power trains
of EVs (from the battery to the tires) are already more energy
efficient than those of ICEVs (from the gas tank to the tires). Wang
and DeLuchi project that the propulsion efficiency of a 1995 EV (from
the electricity outlet to the tires) will be more than twice that of
an ICEV's efficiency (from the gas tank to the tires). In 2010, the
ratio should double to 4:1, mainly because of improved batteries with
higher energy densities that allow reduced battery weights.
--------------------
\10 OECD's work is based in part on D. Sperling and M. D. DeLuchi,
"Alternative Fuels and Air Pollution Impacts," prepared for OECD by
the Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California,
Davis, California, 1991, and Q. Wang and M. A. DeLuchi, "Impacts
of Electric Vehicles on Primary Energy Consumption and Petroleum
Displacement," Energy, 17 (1992), 351-66.
\11 A fuel economy of 21 mpg for the low-performance ICEV may be
somewhat misleading, given that the average fuel economy for 1994
model minivans as reported by Consumer Reports (April 1994) was only
17.4 mpg.
PETROLEUM CONSUMPTION
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 4:3.2.2
Projected savings in petroleum consumption are estimated by comparing
the amount of petroleum consumed by EVs to charge their batteries
with the amount of petroleum consumed by ICEVs in the form of
gasoline.\12 Primary energy consumption is one factor that must be
considered. The others are the actual amounts of oil used in road
transport and electricity generation in each nation.\13
Table 4.5 presents our analysis of the projected savings in total oil
consumption and imported oil consumption if EVs were to replace 10
percent of ICEVs in each nation. The analysis assumes the current
state of both EV and ICEV technology and would have to be modified if
the energy efficiency of either were to change.
Table 4.5
Nations' Oil Use Statistics and
Projected Annual Savings in Oil If EVs
Replace 10 Percent of ICEVs
Amount oil in Amount oil in Amount of
road electricity Amount oil Total amount Proportion imported oil
transport\a (% generation\a (% used by EV of oil saved of oil saved with 10% Savings in
of total of total as % used by with 10% EVs\a supply EVs\a (% of imported oil Savings as %
Nation supply) supply) ICEV (% of totals) imported total) ($ million)\b of GDP
------------------------ --------------- --------------- ------------ -------------- ------------ -------------- ------------- --------------
France 36.94 (41%) 1.56 (2%) 2.6% 3.6 (9.7%) 0.99 3.55 (4.0%) $496 .050%
Germany 45.14 (40) 2.64 (2) 2.7 4.39 (9.7) 0.97 4.25 (3.9) $593 .045
Italy 30.84 (34) 21.67 (24) 27.7 2.23 (7.2) 1.00 2.23 (2.4) $311 .032
Japan 60.59 (24) 34.57 (14) 14.6 5.18 (8.5) 1.00 5.17 (2.0) $723 .031
Sweden 6.23 (42) 0.14 (1) 8.5 0.57 (9.2) 1.00 0.57 (3.7) $80 .054
Switzerland\c 4.86 (36) 0.10 (1) \d 0.99 \d
United Kingdom 37.04 (45) 7.65 (9) 14.9 3.15 (8.5) -0.13\e -0.41 ($57) (.006)
United States 391.53 (52) 29.19 (4) 6.8 36.5 (9.3) 0.49 17.80 (4.8) $2,488 .044
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Amounts in million metric tons of oil equivalent (Mtoe). One Mtoe
is equal to 7.35 million barrels of oil.
\b The 12-month average price of a barrel of oil was $19.00 for the
period ending June 27, 1994.
\c Information about petroleum displacement was unavailable.
Therefore, savings in petroleum and imported oil could not be
calculated.
\d Not available.
\e United Kingdom realized a net export of oil in 1990.
Source: International Energy Agency, Energy Balances of OECD
Countries (1989-90) (Paris, France: 1992), and Electric Vehicles:
Technical, Performance, and Potential (Paris, France: 1993).
In absolute terms, the United States would realize the largest
savings in oil (36.5 Mtoe, or 9.3 percent of the total currently
consumed by its road transportation sector). Japan would save 5.18
Mtoe of oil, but in relative terms it would save only 8.5 percent of
its current total road transport consumption. Italy would save the
least in relative terms--only 7.2 percent.
These statistics imply that nations, such as Japan and Italy, that
use large proportions of their total oil supply to generate
electricity will not see savings in oil as large as those in other
nations that rely very little on oil to generate electricity. To the
extent that such nations turn to other sources of electricity, such
as nuclear power, their savings would increase.
--------------------
\12 The EV fuel cycle may use petroleum to generate electricity as
well as smaller amounts of petroleum to process other forms of energy
(natural gas, coal, uranium, and so on) for electricity. The ICEV
fuel cycle uses petroleum in the form of gasoline as its primary fuel
source, but petroleum is also used to process crude oil into
gasoline. Both the direct and indirect uses of petroleum are
considered for EVs and ICEVs.
\13 More realistic estimates of EV petroleum consumption would
require an examination of the marginal, or off-peak, sources of
electricity generation when EVs will most likely recharge. However,
such information is typically unavailable.
PETROLEUM INDEPENDENCE
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 4:3.2.3
The final issue we considered was the probable effect of introducing
EVs on petroleum independence. Most of the nations we reviewed
imported nearly all their oil in 1990. The exceptions were the
United Kingdom, which realized a net export of oil, and the United
States, which imported about half of its oil. For nations that
import most of their oil, savings in imported oil are roughly equal
to savings in total oil. For the United States, savings in imported
oil are half the total oil savings, or 17.8 Mtoe. The United Kingdom
would presumably realize a surplus of oil for export of 0.41 Mtoe
annually. Italy and Japan would realize a smaller reduction in total
oil imports with the introduction of EVs than the other nations we
reviewed.
In monetary terms, all nations would save substantial sums with the
introduction of EVs. Savings in total oil consumed would range from
$80 million in Sweden to $5.1 billion in the United States. All
nations except the United States and the United Kingdom import
virtually all their oil and therefore would save approximately the
same amount in the total imported oil consumed. The United States
imports nearly half of its oil and would save $2.5 billion with the
introduction of EVs.\14 The United Kingdom might stand to profit $57
million annually from its surplus oil for export.
We examine the relative effect of these savings by presenting them as
a percentage of gross domestic product in each nation. In relative
terms, Sweden would save more (.054 percent of GDP) than any other
nation, and France and Germany would save more than the United
States. Italy and Japan would realize smaller relative savings than
any other nation.
--------------------
\14 The extent to which EVs would displace imported oil or domestic
oil would, in fact, depend upon the relative end prices of these two
sources. If domestic oil costs exceed imported oil costs, then it is
possible that the United States could choose to displace domestic
oil.
CONCLUSIONS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:3.3
From our review of the literature, it appears that near-term EVs may
consume more energy than conventional gas vehicles, but projections
of the amount of petroleum that will be used to generate future
electricity in the United States are so low that EVs would still save
significant amounts of petroleum. On a per-mile basis, it is
estimated that EVs could reduce U.S. transportation petroleum use by
over 90 percent in 1995 and 96 percent in 2010. Of the nations we
reviewed, only Italy and Japan rely heavily on imported oil to
generate electricity (49 percent and 32 percent, respectively) and
therefore could not be expected to decrease their reliance on
imported oil as a result of EV use as much as other countries.
The United States imported 1-1/2 to 370 times more oil than any other
nation we reviewed and consumed 5 to 70 times more energy in the
forms of coal, petroleum, gas, and electricity. Thus, in terms of
decreasing petroleum fuel consumption and producing long-term energy
savings, the United States clearly stands to gain significantly from
replacing its ICEVs with EVs. Moreover, because U.S. households
tend to own more than one car, they may be in a better position to
incorporate the current limited-range EV into household schedules.
EV EFFECTS ON AIR QUALITY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:4
We begin our discussion of the estimated effects of EVs on pollution
reduction with a discussion of the primary sources and health effects
of a variety of air pollutants. We follow this with data on each
nation's pollution status and current fuel mixes for electricity
generation and a discussion of how these factors might influence the
potential effect of EV use on air pollution. Following this section,
we present data from four U.S. cities with different electricity
fuel mixes and air pollution problems to demonstrate the potential
range and magnitude of the effects of EVs for urban areas in the
United States.
SOURCES AND HEALTH EFFECTS
OF AIR POLLUTANTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:4.1
The effect of air pollution on health is a relatively new field of
inquiry and direct causal relationships are difficult to measure. We
did not review research that attempts to uncover the causal health
effects of air pollution. The information in table 4.6 presents an
overview of the sources of common air pollutants and potential health
effects that have been discussed in the literature we reviewed.
Table 4.6
Health Problems Commonly Associated With
Air Pollutants
Pollutant Source Problem
------------------------- ------------------------- --------------------------
Carbon monoxide Vehicle exhaust, fossil Interferes with blood's
fuel electricity ability to absorb oxygen,
generation, agricultural which impairs perception
land clearing and thinking, slows
reflexes, causes
drowsiness, and can cause
unconsciousness and death;
if inhaled by pregnant
women, may threaten growth
and mental development of
fetus
Carbon dioxide Vehicle exhaust, fossil As the major component of
fuel electricity greenhouse gas emissions,
generation, agricultural has an indirect effect on
land clearing increased possibility of
skin cancers\a
Airborne lead Fuel additives, metal Affects circulatory,
smelters, batteries reproductive, nervous, and
kidney systems; suspected
of causing hyperactivity
and lowered learning
ability in children;
accumulates in bone and
other tissues and,
therefore, hazardous even
after exposure ends
Nitrogen oxides Vehicle exhaust, fossil Can increase
fuel electricity susceptibility to viral
generation, industrial infections such as
boilers influenza, irritate lungs,
and lead to bronchitis and
pneumonia
Sulfur dioxide Fossil fuel electricity Potent respiratory
generation, metal irritant; can impair lung
smelting, vehicle exhaust function by constricting
airways and damaging lung
tissue; can aggravate
asthma and emphysema
Volatile organic Vehicle exhaust, Depending on the compound,
compounds\b refineries, gas stations, effects include eye
industry, solvents irritation, respiratory
irritation, and cancer
Ozone\c Fossil-fuel electricity An oxidizing agent that
generation, vehicle attacks cells and breaks
exhaust, paints and down body tissues, even at
solvents low concentrations;
irritates mucous membranes
of respiratory system;
causes coughing, choking,
damaged lung tissue, and
impaired lung function;
reduces resistance to
colds and pneumonia; can
aggravate chronic heart
disease, asthma,
bronchitis, and emphysema
Toxic emissions\d Industry, vehicle A broad category including
exhaust, coal-source many different compounds
electricity generation that are suspected or
known to cause cancer,
reproductive problems, and
birth defects
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Carbon dioxide accounts for the largest share of radiative forcing
from increased greenhouse gas emissions, but other contributors are
methane (from solid waste, livestock, coal mining, rice cultivation,
and natural gas production), chlorofluorocarbons (industry), and
nitrous oxide.
\b The most abundant are hydrocarbons. Condensation of volatile
organic compounds and sulfur dioxide creates particulates, including
smoke, soot, and dust.
\c Ozone (the primary component of urban smog) is a reactive gas
formed when energy from sunlight causes hydrocarbons (a byproduct of
many industrial processes and engines) to react with nitrogen oxides
(produced by both cars and power plants).
\d These include toxic hydrocarbons such as benzene, toluene, xylene,
and ethylene dibromide.
Source: Adapted from Environmental Protection Agency, World Watch
Institute, International Energy Association, and Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development sources.
Motor vehicle use causes more air pollution than any other human
activity, contributing nearly half of the human-caused nitrous
oxides, two thirds of carbon monoxide, and about half of the
hydrocarbons in industrialized countries around the world. EVs emit
no direct pollutants. However, electricity power plants pollute if
they use fossil fuels (coal, oil, or gas) to generate electricity.
NATIONS' POLLUTION
STATISTICS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:4.2
While industry and electric power generation contribute substantially
to pollution, addressing vehicle emissions is an essential element in
reducing both local and regional air pollution. As table 4.7
illustrates, the extent of pollution problems varied greatly among
the nations we reviewed in terms of their 1989 percentage shares of
global emissions and per capita emission estimates (and world rank
among the 50 highest polluting nations) for the major greenhouse
gases of carbon dioxide, methane, and chlorofluorocarbons. The
United States ranked number 1 in the world in terms of its
contribution to world greenhouse gas emissions in 1989 and number 6
for per capita emissions.\15 At the other end of the spectrum, Sweden
and Switzerland did not emit enough greenhouse gases to rank among
the top 50 polluting nations, although their respective rankings were
46 and 49 for per capita emissions.
Table 4.7
Percentage Share of Global Greenhouse
Gas Emissions and Per Capita Emissions
With Greenhouse Index Rankings, 1989
Percen Per
t capita
Nation share Rank emissions Rank
--------------------------------- ------ ------- ---------- ------
United States 18.4% 1 9.8 6
Japan 5.6 4 6.0 19
Germany\a 3.6 7 6.1 16
United Kingdom 2.4 8 5.5 27
Italy 1.8 10 4.2 41
France 1.7 11 4.1 43
Sweden \b \b 3.9 46
Switzerland \b \b 3.7 49
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Includes both the Federal Republic of Germany and the Democratic
Republic of Germany.
\b Not ranked among the 50 highest-polluting nations.
Source: The World Resources Institute, the United Nations
Environment Programme, and the United Nations Development Program,
World Resources: 1992-93 (Oxford, Eng.: Oxford University Press,
1992).
While the carbon dioxide resulting from burning fossil fuels is
widely considered to be the most potent greenhouse gas, all emissions
contribute to global pollution problems. Table 4.8 shows that
transportation contributes substantially to emissions of nitrogen
oxides, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide. Transportation-related
emissions of sulfur dioxide are quite low; most sulfur dioxide is
emitted by coal-burning electricity generators.
Table 4.8
Percentage of Emissions Attributable to
Various End Use Sectors
Nitrogen Carbon Carbon Sulfur
Sector oxide monoxide dioxide dioxide
----------------------------- -------- --------- -------- --------
Transport 54% 89% 28% 6%
Industry 22 1 34 65
Other 24 10 38 29
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and
International Energy Association, Energy Efficiency and the
Environment (Paris, France: 1991).
--------------------
\15 Nations ranked numbers 1-5 for per capita emissions are United
Arab Emirates (15.7), Qatar (12.4), Luxembourg (10.5), Ivory Coast
(10.4), and Bahrain (10.2).
ESTIMATES OF EV EFFECTS
ON POLLUTION EMISSIONS
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 4:4.2.1
In many respects, EVs have the potential to reduce the transportation
sector's adverse consequences on environmental quality. From both
our literature review and interviews with experts, we found wide
agreement that EVs could be a cleaner alternative to ICEVs,
particularly in highly polluted and congested urban areas where poor
ambient air quality poses a serious health threat. EVs produce
virtually no tailpipe emissions and the net effect on air
quality--the savings from reducing tailpipe emissions minus the
additional smokestack emissions associated with increased electricity
generation--is generally considered to be significantly less than
that of ICEVs.
Hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions from EVs are typically
estimated to be 10 to 20 times lower than those from ICEVs. If EVs
are charged by electric utilities employing hydropower, nuclear
power, or other renewable resources, they contribute almost no
nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, or carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
However, electricity generation from coal, oil, or gas does emit
these pollutants. The central factor determining the effect of EVs
on pollution emissions, then, is the source of fuel used to generate
electricity.\16
--------------------
\16 Our analysis of pollution considers only air pollution. We
recognize that fuel chains can also result in the destruction of
natural habitat and other forms of environmental damage.
ELECTRICITY FUEL MIXES
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 4:4.2.2
As table 4.9 illustrates, the projected mix of fuels that will be
used to produce electricity in 2005 is expected to vary greatly in
the nations we reviewed. Because nuclear and hydropower plants emit
the least amount of pollutants, France, Sweden, and Switzerland will
benefit most from replacing ICEVs with EVs. However, Germany, Italy,
Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States will have more
"carbon-intensive" electricity generation mixes.\17 That is, they
will obtain substantial portions of their electricity from less clean
fuel sources, such as solid fuels (mainly coal), gas, and oil, which
emit significant amounts of pollutants. While nations that produce
electricity from coal, gas, and oil fuels may still reduce pollution
emissions using EVs, the overall effect will be less than that of
nations using more nuclear and hydropower plants.
Table 4.9
Projected Electricity Generation Mixes
in Eight Nations in 2005\a
Hydro-and
geothermal
Nation Nuclear power\b Gas Oil Coal
------------------------ -------- ------------ ----- ----- ------
France 77% 11% 3% 2% 7%
Sweden\c 46 45 3 5 1
Switzerland\d 43 54 1 1 1
Japan 36 12 20 15 17
Germany 25 6 15 1 53
United States 16 15 14 5 50
United Kingdom 11 3 33 11 42
Italy\b 0 20 26 24 30
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Percentages within nations may not add to 100 because of rounding.
\b OECD did not include projected hydropower or geothermal power for
2005. We estimated these for each nation by subtracting the sum of
the other sources from 100 percent. We confirmed the validity of our
results by comparing them with 1990 statistics for actual hydropower
and geothermal electricity generation in these nations.
\c Fuel mix in 2000 is used for 2005.
\d OECD did not include Switzerland in these projections; we used
actual 1990 electricity generation mixes.
Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and
International Energy Association, Electric Vehicles: Technology,
Performance and Potential (Paris, France: 1993).
More specifically, replacing gasoline and diesel-fueled vehicles with
EVs would decrease the emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides,
and sulfur dioxide in nations with less carbon-intensive electricity
but might actually increase emissions of sulfur dioxide and produce
either increases or almost no net change in nitrogen oxides and
carbon dioxide in nations with more carbon-intensive electricity.
--------------------
\17 In the United States, the regional variations in power generation
sources are large. Thus, the regional distribution of EVs in the
United States will have a large influence on the environment.
ESTIMATED EMISSION
EFFECTS OF ELECTRIC
VEHICLES
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 4:4.2.3
From these projected electricity fuel mixes, OECD calculated the
estimated effect on emissions of replacing a small gasoline-powered
van with an electric version in each nation.\18 ICEV emissions were
assumed to adhere to model year 2000 U.S. standards in Germany,
Japan, Sweden, and the United States, and model year 2000 ICEVs sold
in France, Italy, and the United Kingdom would be subject to somewhat
less stringent standards, as they are today. ICEV emissions include
both exhaust and evaporative emissions as well as those from crude
oil refining. Calculations of power plant emissions were based on
the relevant emission standards for each nation, fuel, and pollutant
wherever possible.\19 Finally, emissions per unit of electricity
delivered to end users were derived from each nation's power plant
conversion and electricity distribution efficiencies.\20
In sum, although actual emissions from EVs and ICEVs will not be
exactly equal to their respective estimated emissions standards, no
more exact measure exists. Equating actual emissions with emission
standards favors ICEVs because their actual tailpipe emissions are
typically higher than applicable standards, yet actual emissions from
power plants are generally very close to applicable standards because
of frequent monitoring.
Two scenarios were employed in OECD's emissions estimates. The first
assumed a high-fuel-economy ICEV (28 miles per gallon) and a
low-performance EV (based on USABC midterm performance goals, such as
with a sodium sulfur battery). The second assumed a low-fuel-economy
ICEV (21 miles per gallon) and a high-performance EV (based on USABC
long-term performance goals, such as with a lithium polymer
battery).\21
Figures 4.4 and 4.5 illustrate the estimated effects on greenhouse
gas emissions under two scenarios of introducing an EV in seven
nations.\22 The model estimates emissions of methane, nitrous oxide,
carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, nonmethane hydrocarbons, and carbon
dioxide from the entire fuel-production and use cycle: materials
production and assembly of the vehicles, feedstock recovery,
feedstock transport, fuel production, fuel distribution, and end use
by ICEVs and power plants.\23
Figure 4.4: Percent Change in
Emissions of Greenhouse Gases:
Low-Efficiency EV Versus
High-Fuel-Economy ICEV\a
(See figure in printed
edition.)
\a Numbers shown equal 1 � (EV emissions/ICEV emissions) x 100.
Emissions are in grams per mile carbon dioxide equivalent emissions
over the entire fuel production and use cycle.
Figure 4.5: Percent Change in
Emissions of Greenhouse Gases:
High-Efficiency EV Versus
Low-Fuel-Economy ICEV\a
(See figure in printed
edition.)
\a Numbers shown equal 1 � (EV emissions/ICEV emissions) x 100.
Emissions are in grams per mile carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions
over the entire fuel production and use cycle.
Relative to a high-fuel-economy ICEV, a low-performance EV would
result in higher emissions in nations that rely heavily on
coal-generated electricity. Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom, and
the United States would be among these. However, even
low-performance EVs might reduce greenhouse gas emissions in nations
that rely on low-carbon, nonfossil fuels for electricity, such as
France, Japan, and Sweden.
If a high-performance battery is developed and ICEVs do not achieve
markedly higher fuel economy (figure 4.5), then all nations could
expect to achieve reductions in greenhouse gas emissions with the
introduction of EVs. However, those reductions would depend on the
carbon intensity of the electricity generation mix: Germany, Italy,
the United Kingdom, and the United States would gain fewer emissions
benefits by substituting electricity for gasoline.
Fossil-fuel-fired power plants emit sulfur dioxide, as do gasoline
and diesel ICEVs. Emissions of sulfur dioxide from ICEVs are not
regulated. However, the sulfur content of gasoline and diesel fuels
is regulated. OECD assumed that the emission of sulfur from ICEVs is
equal to the sulfur content of unburned fuel. In the United States,
the sulfur content of gasoline is about 0.03 percent by weight and
will decrease to 0.005 percent for reformulated gasoline available in
2005. France, Germany, Italy, and Sweden regulate the sulfur content
of gasoline at 0.1 percent; gasoline in the United Kingdom contains
0.2 percent sulfur. These European nations are expected to reduce
the sulfur content of gasoline by half by 2005. Data on the sulfur
content of gasoline in Japan are not available; OECD assumed
regulations as stringent as those in the United States, as they have
been historically. Again, applicable regulations and standards
governing power plants were used to estimate sulfur dioxide
emissions.
Figures 4.6 and 4.7 show the likely effect on sulfur dioxide
emissions of introducing EVs into the seven nations. Substituting a
low-performance EV for a high-fuel-efficiency ICEV would result in
substantial increases in sulfur dioxide emissions in nations with
high-carbon intensity electricity sources. For example, the United
States might expect to increase sulfur dioxide emissions by 760
percent with a low-performance EV. Only France and Sweden (and most
likely Switzerland) would reduce sulfur dioxide emissions with
low-performance EVs.
Figure 4.6: Percent Change in
Emissions of Sulfur Dioxide:
Low-Efficiency EV Versus
High-Fuel-Economy ICEV\a
(See figure in printed
edition.)
\a Numbers shown equal 1 � (EV emissions/ICEV emissions) x 100.
Emissions are in grams/km over the entire fuel production and use
cycle.
Figure 4.7: Percent Change in
Emissions of Sulfur Dioxide:
High-Efficiency EV Versus
Low-Fuel-Economy ICEV\a
(See figure in printed
edition.)
\a Numbers shown equal 1 � (EV emissions/ICEV emissions) x 100.
Emissions are in grams/km over the entire fuel production and use
cycle.
Substituting a high-performance EV for a low-fuel-economy ICEV would
lessen sulfur dioxide emissions in all nations, but the United States
might still increase sulfur dioxide emissions by 300 percent, and
only Japan would switch from "more" to "less" emissions if EVs
improved in performance relative to ICEVs. However, gasoline
vehicles are a minor source of sulfur dioxide emissions, which means
that in the aggregate, EV use will not greatly alter these emissions.
The Clean Air Act Amendments require power plants to significantly
reduce nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions. Yet, costs will
increase if additional emissions must be monitored at the power
plant. Moreover, other nations we reviewed do not all have air
quality restrictions as stringent as those in the United States.
Thus, the introduction of EVs in these nations could contribute to
increased global emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide.
In sum, the extent to which EVs might reduce air pollution in a given
nation is highly dependent on the source of fuel used to generate
electricity. Ideally, EVs would be recharged overnight using excess
electricity. The fuel used at these off-peak times can be just one
of a nation's entire mix. Few analyses consider this "marginal
electricity mix." Nor do analyses often generalize beyond the
estimated effects of introducing a single EV for an ICEV to the
estimated effects of a larger proportion of EVs in the total fleet
(for example, 10 percent as California has mandated for 2003).
Finally, although power plant smokestacks pollute, they do not move
and are thus easier to monitor and control. The overall
effectiveness of introducing EVs should consider the likely costs of
monitoring such stationary pollution.
--------------------
\18 Switzerland was not included in the OECD analyses. Switzerland's
electricity generation mix is similar to that of Sweden. Thus, the
effects of introducing EVs in Switzerland may be inferred from
estimates for Sweden.
\19 This was not the case for estimates of sulfur dioxide emissions
from natural gas-fired plants and hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide
emissions from all power plant types. These were all assumed to be
equal to the average uncontrolled emission rate in the United States.
\20 Power plant conversion and distribution efficiencies ranged from
53 percent for natural gas-fired plants in France to 19 percent for
coal-fired plants in Sweden.
\21 Low-performance EVs were assumed to have a range of 124 miles and
an energy consumption of 0.65 kWh/mile; high-performance EVs were
assumed to have a range of 200 miles and an energy consumption of
0.41 kWh/mile.
\22 Data for Switzerland may be inferred from those for Sweden.
\23 Each pollutant is converted into units of "carbon dioxide
equivalents." That is, 1 gram of the noncarbon dioxide gases is
equated to the warming effect of 1 gram of carbon dioxide gas over a
given period.
TAILPIPES VERSUS
SMOKESTACKS
------------------------------------------------------ Chapter 4:4.2.4
Comparing emissions of carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons is
straightforward and unambiguous. EVs have a great advantage over
ICEVs as they "emit" virtually none of either pollutant directly or
at the power plant, regardless of the electricity fuel source.\24
However, comparisons of emissions of the other major pollutants are
less clear cut. For example, nitrogen oxides emissions of
fossil-fuel electricity power plants with varying levels of emissions
control could range from 93 percent less than to 95 percent more than
emissions from gasoline vehicles.\25
Several examples illustrate the complexity of determining changes in
emissions if EVs replace ICEVs.
Researchers at the Federal Environment Agency of the Federal Republic
of Germany used two models to compare pollution emissions for ICEVs
and EVs.\26 The first model used emissions data from the different
types of power plants in the Federal Republic of Germany, which was
then weighted by the proportion of the total electricity generated by
that type of fuel. For example, 38 percent of electricity in 1989
was generated by nuclear power and hydropower, which emit no
pollutants; therefore, their contribution to the composite emissions
model was zero. The composite emissions scores for each pollutant
were used to calculate the emissions of an EV charged by this mix of
fuels, and these emission rates were compared to the known emission
rates of a comparable catalyst-equipped ICEV.
Results suggested that operating an EV about 30 miles a day using the
current electricity generation mix would result in about the same
amount of carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions and ten times
more sulfur dioxide than a catalyst-equipped ICEV. Shorter daily
operating ranges substantially increased EV emissions relative to
those of ICEVs.
EVs are expected to cause additional electricity demand in Germany,
and nearly all surge capacity in Germany is generated by coal-fired
plants. Thus, a second emissions model used pollution data from only
coal-fired plants (49 percent of total capacity in 1989).
Attributing the electricity used to charge batteries to coal-fired
power plants dramatically increased the estimated emission-related
disadvantages of EVs. At a 30-mile-per-day range, a "coal-charged"
EV would result in about 1-1/2 times more carbon dioxide, 2-1/4 times
more nitrogen oxides, and 24 times more sulfur dioxide entering the
atmosphere than a catalyst-equipped ICEV would emit by its tailpipe.
Again, shorter driving ranges increased relative EV emissions.
Thus, the Federal Environment Agency researchers concluded that the
discernible increases in global emissions and only minor reductions
in local pollution levels imply that the broad-scale introduction of
EVs into the Federal Republic of Germany is justifiable only if the
zero emission at the place of use is considered more important than
the increased emissions at the power plant. Of higher priority in
that nation is the introduction of fuel-efficient, catalyst-equipped
petroleum vehicles that meet the California requirements for
ultra-low emissions--or cleaner power plants.
In direct contrast, French researchers from ADEME found that an EV
powered by the French electricity mix would substantially reduce
pollution both globally and locally.\27 France generated 75 percent
of its electricity from nuclear power in 1990. Electricity generated
by nuclear energy produces virtually no pollutants. Thus, in France
charging an EV is predicted to result in nearly 10 times less carbon
dioxide, 50 times less carbon monoxide, 5 times less hydrocarbons and
nitrogen oxides, and 3 times less sulfur dioxide than a comparable
ICEV emits from its tailpipe.
Despite these encouraging predictions for individual EV emissions,
the French researchers concluded that the net emissions reductions in
France that could be achieved by replacing 10 percent of ICEVs with
EVs would be less substantial: 8-percent reductions of carbon
dioxide, 10-percent reductions of carbon monoxide, 6-percent
reductions of hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides, and 4-percent
reductions of sulfur dioxide emissions. If the current European
electricity generation mix (which uses substantial amounts of coal
and oil) replaced the French mix in the model's calculations, the
model predicted slightly lower emissions reductions of carbon dioxide
and carbon monoxide with emissions of hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides,
and sulfur dioxide actually increasing.
--------------------
\24 EVs do not "emit" pollutants in the traditional sense of tailpipe
exhaust. We use the term "emit" here to mean the emissions
associated with electricity power plants used to charge EV batteries.
\25 M. DeLuchi et al., "Electric Vehicles: Performance, Life-Cycle
Costs, Emissions, and Recharging Requirements," Transportation
Research A, 23A:3 (1989), 255-78.
\26 H. Blumel, "CO2 and Pollutant Emissions of Catalyst-Equipped,
Battery-Powered and Hybrid Cars: A Comparison," in Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development, The Urban Electric Vehicle:
Policy Options, Technology Trends, and Market Prospects (Paris,
France: 1992).
\27 A. Morcheoine and G. Chaumain, "Energy Efficiency, Emissions,
and Costs: What Are the Advantages of Electric Vehicles?" in The
Urban Electric Vehicle.
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF EVS IN
FOUR U.S. CITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:5
We regard the effect of unique, regional characteristics as central
to the debate about whether EVs can substantially reduce air
pollution. In the United States, both air pollution problems and
fuel mixes vary substantially from region to region. EVs are
promoted for urban areas where pollution is typically more of a
problem than in rural areas. Yet, our review uncovered few studies
that have analyzed the effect of introducing EVs into U.S. urban
areas that differ along the critical dimensions discussed above.
Wang and Santini analyzed the effect of introducing EVs in 2000 into
Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, and New York City, whose electricity
fuel mixes and air quality problems differ from one another.\28
Table 4.10 presents the marginal power plant mix for EV recharging as
projected by utility companies in about the year 2000 in each of the
four cities. Chicago plans to generate all its off-peak electricity
from nonpolluting fuels, whereas Denver and New York will receive
more than half of their off-peak electricity from highly polluting
coal and oil. Los Angeles expects to import much of its off-peak
power from natural gas generating plants. However, it is important
to note that as of 1990, Denver, New York, and Los Angeles used coal
as their primary high-demand off-peak fuel source.\29
Table 4.10
Projected Marginal Power Plant Mix for
EV Recharging
Los
Chicag Angele
Fuel o Denver s New York
---------------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ----------
Coal 0 52.6% 7.5% 24.0%
Gas 0 35.2 85.0 28.0
Oil 0 3.3 0 48.0
Nuclear, hydro, and other \a 100.0% 8.9 7.5 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Wang and Santini assumed that power plants fueled by these sources
have zero emissions.
Source: Q. Wang and M. D. Santini, "Magnitude and Value of
Electric Vehicle Emissions Reduction for Six Driving Cycles in Four
U.S. Cities with Varying Air Quality Problems," presented at the 72
annual meeting of Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.,
January 10-14, 1993.
Figure 4.8 presents Wang and Santini's estimates of per-mile emission
reductions of an EV relative to emissions of an ICEV for each
pollutant in each of the four cities using the Simplified Federal
Urban Driving Cycle, a model that estimates emissions for vehicles
traveling at an average speed of 18.5 mph. As in the German study we
discussed above, emissions data from the different types of power
plants in the different cities were weighted by the proportion of the
total electricity generated by that type of fuel to create composite
emissions scores. The composite emissions scores for each pollutant
were then used to calculate the emissions of an EV charged by this
mix of fuels, and these emission rates were compared to the known
emission rates of a comparable ICEV.
Figure 4.8: Percent Change in
Emissions If an EV Replaces an
ICEV\a
(See figure in printed
edition.)
\a Changes in per-mile passenger car emissions because of EV use were
calculated based on an ICEV with 50,000 accumulated miles and a fuel
economy of 26.1 miles per gallon and a four-passenger EV similar to
the Ford Ecostar with a fuel economy of 0.37 kWh/mile.
\b Sulfur dioxide for New York x 10.
As figure 4.8 illustrates, emissions reductions estimates vary
considerably by city. In Chicago, where nuclear power is expected to
supply EV electricity, emissions reductions for all pollutants are
estimated at 100 percent. Electricity generation--regardless of the
fuel source--emits virtually no carbon monoxide or hydrocarbons. In
all four cities, the operation of an EV is expected to result in
99-percent less carbon monoxide and more than 97-percent less
hydrocarbons than the operation of an ICEV.
In Denver, Los Angeles, and New York, differences in electricity
generation mixes would affect potential emissions reductions. With
respect to nitrogen oxides, an EV in Denver (where coal is expected
to be the primary electricity source) would result in only 8-percent
less pollution than an ICEV; in New York, an EV would result in about
75-percent less nitrogen oxides; and an EV in Los Angeles would
result in 90-percent less nitrogen oxides. The scenario with sulfur
dioxide is expected to be mixed. The sulfur dioxide emitted by an
ICEV would be reduced by approximately 90 percent when an EV replaced
it in Los Angeles. But an EV would emit 100-percent more sulfur
dioxide in Denver and 1,000-percent more in New York, where coal and
oil are expected to produce the majority of electricity for EV
recharging. Some reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is predicted;
this varies from about 28 to 35 percent, depending on the carbon
intensities of the fuel used to generate electricity.
How much an EV is worth in terms of predicted emissions reduction
depends, in part, upon each city's emissions reductions needs and
estimated avoided costs per pollutant.\30 Table 4.11 shows the recent
status of the four cities in terms of meeting Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) ambient air quality standards. Emissions of
hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides combine to create ozone
(photochemical smog) for which Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York
currently fail to meet air quality standards. Denver, Los Angeles,
and New York have not attained air quality standards for carbon
monoxide. And Los Angeles is not in compliance with nitrogen oxides
standards. All four cities meet attainment levels for sulfur
dioxide.
Table 4.11
Attainment of EPA's Ambient Air Quality
Standards in Four Cities
Nitrogen Carbon
City Ozone oxides monoxide Sulfur dioxide
-------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ----------------
Chicago No Yes Yes Yes
Denver Yes Yes No Yes
Los Angeles No No No Yes
New York No Yes No Yes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Q. Wang and M. D. Santini, "Magnitude and Value of
Electric Vehicle Emissions Reduction for Six Driving Cycles in Four
U.S. Cities with Varying Air Quality Problems," presented at the
72nd annual meeting of Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C., January 10-14, 1993.
As table 4.12 suggests, EVs would be particularly valuable in
reducing carbon monoxide air pollution problems in Denver, Los
Angeles, and New York. Reductions in hydrocarbons and nitrogen
oxides in Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York would decrease ozone
levels. And even considering the costs of sulfur dioxide control at
coal and oil power plants in Denver and New York, an EV's overall
value is still positive.
Table 4.12
Estimated Avoided Pollution Costs of EVs
in Four U.S. Cities\a
Los
Chicag Angele
Pollutant o Denver s New York
----------------------------------- ------ ------ ------ ---------
Hydrocarbons $2,383 0 $2,062 $2,549
Carbon monoxide 0 $8,314 13,637 8,203
Nitrogen oxide 2,008 0 2,113 1,582
Sulfur dioxide 50 -52 303 -506
======================================================================
Total $4,446 $8,262 $18,11 $11,828
5
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Over 13 years if driven 1.6 hours per day, equivalent to 209,853
total urban miles traveled.
Source: Q. Wang and M. D. Santini, "Magnitude and Value of
Electric Vehicle Emissions Reductions for Six Driving Cycles in Four
U.S. Cities with Varying Air Quality Problems," presented at the
72nd annual meeting of Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C., January 10-14, 1993.
Note: Table has been revised since first printing to reflect updated
data provided by Wang and Santini.
In sum, regional electricity fuel mixes affected results in all the
environmental impact studies we reviewed. But important distinctions
in analytical methods contributed to differences among findings. For
example, calculations of pollution reduction benefits produced by EVs
often used projected electricity fuel mixes for 2000 and beyond. In
many cases, calculations based on current (and often less clean) fuel
sources would result in less promising estimates. The wide range of
pollution reduction predictions is also partly the result of the
physical and operational characteristics of the EV and ICEV used in
the comparison. That is, some studies compared EV emissions to those
of new catalyst-equipped ICEVs while others used ICEV emission rates
after 5 years and 50,000 accumulated miles. Other differences of
note included daily miles operated, level of emissions control at the
electricity generating plant, vehicle operating speed, and
comparisons to gasoline- or diesel-fueled ICEVs. Thus, the findings
and conclusions of any one study must be considered within the
context of the assumptions used in the comparisons. We also found
that while each EV may significantly reduce emissions of most
pollutants relative to what a comparable ICEV emits from its
tailpipe, the net air quality benefits that could be achieved by
substituting large numbers of EVs for ICEVs may be substantially less
optimistic.
--------------------
\28 Q. Wang and D. Santini, "Magnitude and Value of Electric
Vehicle Emissions Reductions for Six Driving Cycles in Four U.S.
Cities with Varying Air Quality Problems," presented at the 72nd
annual meeting of Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.,
January 10-14, 1993.
\29 The timeline for converting to these cleaner electricity sources
may be somewhat optimistic. For example, the North American Electric
Reliability Council reported that as of 1990, 63 percent of planned
capacity additions for 1998 were not yet under construction. (U.S.
General Accounting Office, Energy Policy: Developing Strategies for
Energy Policies in the 1990s, GAO/RCED-90-85 (Washington, D.C.: June
16, 1990), and Argonne National Laboratory, Three Scenarios for
Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Commercialization (Argonne, Ill.: U.S.
Department of Energy, 1990).
\30 Wang and Santini judgmentally correlated estimated costs of
pollution reduction (from California Energy Commission) with the
seriousness of pollution violations (from the Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA). Included are the costs to stay in
attainment for each pollutant as well as the costs to offset sulfur
dioxide emissions at electricity generation plants. The estimated
costs of pollution emissions reductions (on a dollar per ton per year
basis) were spread over a 10-year vehicle lifetime assuming 11,000
driving miles per year.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:6
To examine costs to own and operate an EV as well as likely effects
on energy savings and pollution reduction, we reviewed the
literature, interviewed experts, and made a number of international
site visits. We found that costs to purchase an EV are likely to be
substantially higher than those of a comparable ICEV in the near
term, when production volumes of EVs are expected to be low. As
economies of scale and learning take place, the costs to purchase an
EV will begin to approach those of an ICEV. However, purchase costs
of different types of EVs will depend heavily on the type of battery
used. The costs of different batteries will vary widely, but this
variation may be offset somewhat by the number of miles a battery can
be used before it must be replaced.
The likely near-term costs to own and operate an EV in the eight
nations is expected to be substantially higher than those of an ICEV.
As initial purchase prices decrease, the benefits of lower EV fueling
costs would be realized in all the nations except the United States,
where the ratio of gasoline to electricity costs is lower. In the
United States, the cost to own and operate an EV is expected to
remain higher than the cost of an ICEV, even at high volumes of
production.
Petroleum-based transportation contributes substantially to overall
pollution problems and petroleum dependence around the world. We
concluded that EVs have the potential to increase energy security,
produce energy savings, reduce petroleum consumption, and reduce
pollution. However, the likelihood and magnitude of these effects
are highly dependent on national and regional variations.
Whether and to what extent a nation reduces reliance on imported oil
and petroleum consumption as a result of introducing EVs depends both
on the proportion of the total energy supply derived from imported
oil and the proportion of electricity generated by oil. Of the eight
nations we reviewed, only Italy and Japan may fail to see substantial
decreases in the amount of imported oil that would be required by the
transportation sector if EVs were to replace ICEVs. Even these
nations would save over $300 million and $700 million, respectively,
worth of imported oil annually through replacing 10 percent of their
ICEVs with EVs.
We also concluded from our review of the literature that, at least in
the United States, EVs using current technology may consume more
primary energy in the form of electricity than ICEVs consume in the
form of petroleum, but future advances should result in EVs using 30
to 35 percent less energy than ICEVs. Moreover, an EV could
immediately displace 90 percent or more of the petroleum consumed by
an ICEV.
Local and regional pollution is a serious problem in many of the
nations we reviewed, including the United States. EVs would
eliminate almost entirely the hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide
emissions associated with ICEV tailpipes. Reductions in hydrocarbons
and nitrogen oxides would decrease ozone, otherwise known as urban
smog. However, because many countries and regions of the United
States still rely heavily on coal and oil for electricity production,
some areas could see substantial increases in sulfur dioxide
emissions and no change or moderate increases in carbon dioxide and
nitrogen oxides. Yet, the costs--at least in the United
States--associated with controlling sulfur dioxide emissions at power
plants may be offset by the cost savings realized by reducing the
emissions of other pollutants.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
============================================================ Chapter 5
CURRENT BARRIERS TO WIDESPREAD
EV USE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:1
Current barriers to the widespread introduction of EVs are five:
battery technology, infrastructure support, safety, market prospects,
and price. Current battery technologies vary in their ability to
overcome these and other barriers, which are important to their
success. Table 5.1 indicates the outstanding issues that must be
resolved for the specific battery types that appear to be the most
promising.
Table 5.1
Battery Issues to Be Resolved
Sodium sulfur
Nickel Nickel and sodium
Issue Lead acid cadmium hydride Nickel iron chloride
----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ---------------
Range X \a X
Power X \a X X
Cycle life X \a X
Self- X
discharge
Temperature X X X
control
Safety X X X
Recycling X X X X
Service and X X X
maintenance
Production X X X
technology
Raw X X X X
materials
cost
Raw X X X
materials
supply
Initial X X X X
price
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a While cell-level results appear to be promising, full system
performance is not yet known.
Major EV infrastructure supports that are currently not in place
include residential and commercial fleet charging facilities, public
charging stations, battery replacement and recycling, emergency road
service, and electrical generating capacity. The type and amount of
infrastructure support that must be in place when EVs are introduced
is not yet certain, but some early infrastructure availability is
necessary for consumer acceptance.
EVs exhibit operational and maintenance hazards that are not
experienced or do not occur to the same degree in current ICEVs. In
particular, risks are associated with the considerable mass and
volatile nature of EV batteries, but the available data are scarce
and inconclusive about the severity of these risks. Nevertheless,
EVs should not be granted special exemptions from vehicle
crashworthiness standards.
The nature and extent of the private EV market are not yet well
defined. Estimates of the potential consumer EV market range from 60
percent of U.S. households to as few as 6 percent of U.S.
automobile consumers. The typical methods used to produce these
estimates have limited validity as forecasts of the likely market for
this new technology.
Most corporate and government fleets make up a "niche" market that
would not be hampered by current limitations in EV range and
recharging. These fleets represent the most feasible opportunity to
put EVs on the road today.
The initial costs of EVs will likely remain the largest obstacle to
their purchase. Notwithstanding national and regional purchase
incentives, the incremental costs of buying an EV will most likely be
borne primarily by consumers. Standardization and high demand are
two prerequisites to achieving the economies of scale and learning
that reduce production costs. To date, EVs have achieved neither.
When they do, production costs should decrease, as will consumer
costs.
NATIONAL ELECTRIC VEHICLE
PROGRAMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:2
Among other nations' policies and programs to develop, produce, and
promote EVs, those in France, Germany, Japan, and Switzerland offer
elements that may contribute to a more comprehensive U.S. EV
program.
While other nations focus efforts on demonstration programs,
infrastructure support, and production economics, they await a
battery breakthrough from the U.S. Advanced Battery Consortium. In
direct contrast to many of the countries we visited, the United
States devotes proportionately less money to public EV demonstration
and promotion programs or infrastructure needs assessment and
development. EVs are not available in sufficient numbers to satisfy
the mandatory requirements of some U.S. demonstration programs.
Several foreign officials cite the California-type legislation as a
major stimulus for increased interest in EVs in their countries.
Five automobile manufacturers with large volumes of sales in the
United States--three in Japan, one in Germany, and one in Sweden--are
producing and testing EVs using current-generation,
limited-performance batteries. If production and demonstration goals
succeed, some foreign manufacturers will most likely have low-cost,
performance-tested vehicles ready to receive advanced batteries
developed by the United States.
NATIONAL AND REGIONAL CONCERNS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:3
Battery costs would remain the largest contributor to the initial
costs of EVs. Different types of batteries would command widely
different prices, which could, in part, be offset by differences in
overall driving life. High initial purchase costs mean that
near-term EV life-cycle costs are likely to be significantly higher
than comparable costs of ICEVs. If EV purchase prices decrease
substantially as production volume increases and electricity
utilities institute widespread residential off-peak rates, then EV
life-cycle costs in every nation except the United States would be
lower than the life-cycle costs of comparable ICEVs. Among the
nations we reviewed, the United States has the least favorable ratio
of gasoline to electricity prices for reducing consumer automobile
operating costs with EVs.
EVs have the potential to increase energy security and reduce
pollution. However, net gains in either would be highly dependent
upon future advances in EV and ICEV technologies as well as the fuel
sources and processes used to generate electricity. Of the eight
nations we reviewed, the U.S. current electricity fuel mix is among
the most conducive to achieving petroleum savings and the least
conducive to achieving pollution reduction goals.
EVs meeting the USABC midterm criteria may fare poorly compared to
ICEVs in terms of the amount of primary energy consumed. If EVs
achieve the USABC long-term goals and ICEVs do not achieve
substantially improved fuel economy, then EVs will significantly
reduce primary energy consumption under nearly all conditions.
Introducing EVs would increase independence from imported oil in all
eight nations. The United States would save more annually ($2.5
billion) by replacing 10 percent of ICEVs with EVs than any other
nation. Although Italy and Japan generate substantial amounts of
electricity from oil and therefore would save less imported oil than
the other nations, they would still save annually $300 million and
$700 million, respectively.
Local and regional pollution is a serious problem in many nations,
including the United States. EVs would almost entirely eliminate the
hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide emissions associated with ICEV
tailpipes, thus reducing ozone, or urban smog. However, because many
countries and regions of the United States still rely heavily on coal
and oil for electricity production, some areas could see substantial
increases in sulfur dioxide emissions and no change or moderate
increases in carbon dioxide and nitrogen oxides.
Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions associated with
electricity generation are regulated in the United States by the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. However, costs will increase if
additional emissions must be monitored and controlled at the power
plant. Moreover, other nations do not all have air quality
restrictions as stringent as those in the United States; the
introduction of EVs in these nations could contribute to increased
global emissions of nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide.
CONCLUSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:4
The ultimate viability of EVs as a widespread transportation option
cannot now be ensured. The lack of conveniences, such as
longer-range batteries or public quick-recharging stations, and
assurances, such as verification and publicity of EV safety and
crashworthiness, hinder consumer acceptance. Current tax and
purchase incentives are not adequate to ease the considerable
financial burden for those now desiring to purchase EVs. No firm
commitments for larger government or corporate fleet purchases
currently exist to encourage higher production rates that might
reduce consumer costs.
Industry and government officials in the eight nations we visited
emphasized the perceived significance of USABC and the California
mandate in the reemergence of EVs. Some nations are not anticipating
large domestic EV markets, yet their automobile manufacturers are
preparing for the mandated U.S. markets.
The dual role the United States is playing in the worldwide support
of EV development, both by investing in advanced battery research at
the national level and by mandating zero-emission vehicles at the
state level, may be prerequisite to successful commercialization.
However, U.S. policy toward EVs is fragmented in two ways. First,
already limited federal funds for field testing are divided among
programs in the departments of energy, defense, and transportation.
Consequently, no single program has sufficient funds to purchase
adequate numbers of EVs or to conduct rigorous field demonstrations
and evaluations. Second, the lack of emphasis on the barriers that
can be addressed before a battery breakthrough and that ultimately
must be resolved to market a viable vehicle--namely, issues of
infrastructure support, market development, and production
economics--has created a void between state policies mandating EV
markets and federal policies supporting battery technology
initiatives.
Meanwhile, other nations are focusing more directly on the
elimination of these barriers by funding public demonstrations to
field test vehicles and infrastructure, to assess consumer market
characteristics, and to create an immediate market that increases
production economies of scale. As a result, the possibility exists
that the United States may introduce a critical technology--a high
performance battery--that other countries can more easily adapt to
performance-tested vehicles that are ready for the 1998 U.S.
marketplace created by state legislation.
The aim of the current U.S. fuel-neutral energy policy is to
diversify this nation's energy and transportation options by focusing
on desirable end results--such as cleaner air--without prescribing
the means for achieving them. Similarly, U.S. transportation
program funding is divided among many fuel types, in part to maximize
the likelihood that viable alternative fuels will be developed and
commercialized.
One consequence of fuel neutrality may be fragmentation of funding
and support. Full funding of currently legislated U.S. EV programs
will not guarantee the commercial viability of EVs produced in the
United States. Nevertheless, without the full implementation of a
comprehensive national energy plan that includes some threshold level
of support for EVs, it is highly unlikely that EV technology will
achieve commercial success. Such a program would be best designed
with the interest, cooperation, and consolidation of resources from
federal, state, local, and private partnership sources. In
particular, common goals and resources, better coordinated and
directed, would eliminate many of the fragmented policies and
duplicated efforts that characterize U.S. EV efforts.
A fuel-neutral policy also recognizes that no single strategy or fuel
could solve this nation's assorted transportation-related problems.
Indeed, the diversity and range of economic, energy, and pollution
effects associated with alternatively fueled vehicles generally, and
electric vehicles in particular, suggest the need for a
well-developed, clear consensus concerning the optimal mix of
strategies by which the transportation sector can contribute to
achieving this nation's stated goals for reducing energy dependence
and global and regional pollution problems. Additional emphasis on
environmentally and geographically sensitive criteria for the
selection of AFVs would help underscore the ultimate goals of fuel
neutrality.
The federal policy stance toward the development of EVs is
incongruent with state initiatives and, in some instances, with
itself. EPA has given approval to state plans to reduce air
pollution that imitate the California plan by creating an EV market
through mandate. DOE continues to fund USABC. And small-scale EV
demonstrations have been funded through DOD appropriations. Yet, the
field testing and demonstration provisions of the Energy Policy Act
of 1992 have not been fully funded.
The tentativeness of U.S. policy toward EVs may reflect the inherent
riskiness of supporting a nascent technology. Yet, its currently
fragmented state raises the additional risk of spending millions of
dollars on advanced battery research only to lose early market share
in state mandated markets.
(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix I
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY
============================================================ Chapter 5
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
(See figure in printed edition.)
The following are GAO's comments on the September 9, 1994, DOE
letter.
GAO COMMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:5
Most of the Department of Energy's comments reflect a basic agreement
with us over the wide range of assumptions that can be adopted
regarding the ultimate performance of electric vehicles relative to
those of future internal combustion engine vehicles. DOE also
provided us under separate cover with a number of technical and
editorial comments. We have not reprinted these, but we have made
changes in the body of the report as appropriate. We address DOE's
more general comments below.
COMMENT 1
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:5.1
We agree with DOE that electric vehicle battery technology is
evolving rapidly and that a breakthrough could occur at any time.
However, our objective in this report was to evaluate the current
status of electric vehicle development. For this reason, we believe
that the comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of batteries
at various stages of technical development was both proper and
unavoidable. Such a presentation in no way implies that these
limitations are insurmountable with further research and development.
COMMENT 2
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:5.2
We recognize the efforts of DOE and other interested groups to
identify and address gaps in required electric vehicle
infrastructure. Nevertheless, we believe that many outstanding
issues remain to be resolved before the infrastructure support for
electric vehicles could be considered adequate to sustain a
substantial number of electric vehicles in the private and commercial
marketplace.
We note in our report that GSA plans to purchase 10 to 15 electric
vehicles to add to the 10,200 alternatively fueled vehicles that were
in the federal fleet in July 1994. According to GSA officials in
September 1994, current plans for 1995 include no electric vehicles
among the 9,000 planned alternatively fueled vehicle purchases.
Nevertheless, DOE continues to foresee sufficient 1995 appropriations
to provide GSA with incremental funding for the purchase of 100 to
150 electric vehicles. Yet, even if these 1995 goals are met,
electric vehicles would, on balance, continue to constitute a very
small proportion of GSA's 1995 plans to purchase 9,000 alternatively
fueled vehicle purchases for the federal fleet.
COMMENT 3
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:5.3
We believe that the activities DOE cited to address electric vehicle
safety issues are an implicit acknowledgment that these issues are
some distance from final resolution. We continue to believe that the
safety of electric vehicles remains a critical issue for their
ultimate viability.
COMMENT 4
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:5.4
We have acknowledged these and other efforts to evaluate the
potential market for electric vehicles throughout our report.
However, we suggest that neither dispersing small numbers of electric
vehicles throughout U.S. utility fleets nor providing limited
production electric vehicles to 1,000 consumers for 2 to 4 weeks will
have a marked effect on the awareness and acceptance of electric
vehicles by the estimated 170 million licensed drivers in the United
States.
COMMENT 5
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:5.5
We reviewed the assumptions DOE used to estimate the life-cycle costs
of electric vehicles. Generally, DOE projects that certain electric
vehicle batteries will demonstrate substantial performance and cost
improvements by 1998 and 2005. We are less optimistic that, within
these periods, these batteries can achieve such performance,
commercial production, and cost goals. Based in part on this
reasoning, our cost models include different batteries with less
advanced performance characteristics and produced in smaller
quantities in 1998.
COMMENT 6
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:5.6
While we accept the automobile industry's position in 1991 that
battery research was a more critical need than electric drive train
development, we continue to believe that other important aspects of
electric vehicle development receive disproportionately less
attention than battery research. We concur with DOE that
appropriated funding for the electric vehicle sections of the Energy
Policy Act of 1992 have fallen short of authorization.
COMMENT 7
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:5.7
The EV America program is in the early development stages, and we
were unable to evaluate its potential effect on electric vehicle
demonstration. The introduction of 5,000 roadworthy vehicles would
constitute a positive step toward addressing the current barriers
that impede the widespread introduction of electric vehicles.
However, doubts must remain whether such a goal can be achieved in
the near term. As we noted in the report, current electric vehicle
demonstration programs of much smaller scale are experiencing
difficulty finding a sufficient number of electric vehicles to form
demonstration programs of the size mandated by the Energy Policy Act.
Given that the three large U.S. automobile manufacturers are
currently planning to produce 250 electric vehicles, the EV America
program's success depends, in part, upon substantially greater
commitments from these manufacturers.
COMMENT 8
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:5.8
Our purpose in comparing the amount of public funds dedicated to
battery research and development in different nations was not to
evaluate the level of funding of the U.S. Advanced Battery
Consortium nor to suggest that battery research and development is
not progressing in foreign countries (particularly in Japan).
Rather, our intent was to contrast the balance of governmental
support between battery research and development and infrastructure
development in different nations.
COMMENT 9
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:5.9
As noted earlier, we reviewed the assumptions DOE used to project
likely electric vehicle economics. Given the current status of
battery development, we believe the assumptions we used in our report
are more realistic projections of electric vehicle performance and
costs.
COMMENT 10
------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:5.10
Our analysis of the primary energy use of electric vehicles and
conventional vehicles uses a range of assumptions about the likely
performance of electric and internal combustion engine vehicles. Our
model analyzes conditions both favorable and unfavorable to electric
vehicles and highlights the likely consequences of focusing research
and development efforts on either improving electric vehicle fuel
economy or improving gasoline vehicle fuel economy. We evaluated the
assumptions used in the energy analysis DOE sponsored and cited in
its technical comments on our report. We found three major
differences between the assumptions in our models and those in DOE's
model.
1. DOE's base case analysis assumes that the electricity for the
electric vehicle is generated only by advanced natural gas facilities
with fuel conversion efficiencies higher than most currently in
operation. High electricity conversion efficiencies substantially
reduce the primary energy requirements of electric vehicles.
Advanced natural gas facilities are projected to account for 6
percent of the U.S. fuel mix in 2001. We use the conversion
efficiencies of the current average fuel mix in each nation in our
analysis.
2. The internal combustion engine van in DOE's analysis has a
projected fuel economy of 25 mpg in 2001. The projected fuel
economies in our analysis range from 21 mpg (low performance) to 28
mpg (high performance).
3. DOE assumes that the energy consumption from the plug to the
wheels of a van with a battery meeting the USABC midterm criteria
(for example, sodium sulfur) will be 0.30 kWh per kilometer in 2001.
We assume an energy consumption of 0.40 kWh per kilometer for this
battery and 0.25 kWh per kilometer for a battery meeting the USABC
long-term criteria.
These and other minor differences in the two analyses explain why DOE
concurs with our findings when we model conditions favorable to
electric vehicles (high-performance electric vehicles versus
low-performance internal combustion engine vehicles) but disagrees
with our findings when we model conditions unfavorable to electric
vehicles (low-performance electric vehicles versus high-performance
internal combustion engine vehicles).
COMMENT 11
------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5:5.11
We recognize that sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions
associated with electricity generation are regulated in the United
States by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. However, costs will
increase if additional emissions must be monitored and controlled at
the power plant. Moreover, other nations we reviewed do not all have
air quality restrictions as stringent as those in the United States.
Thus, the introduction of electric vehicles in these nations could
contribute to increased global emissions of nitrogen oxides and
sulfur dioxide.
ADOPTED STATE LEGISLATIVE
INITIATIVES REGARDING ALTERNATIVE
FUELS
========================================================== Appendix II
ARIZONA
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.1
Discounted annual license tax rate to EVs ($4 per $100)
Income tax credit (25 percent or $5,000) over 3 years to alternative
fuel vehicles (AFVs)
Conversion tax credit (up to $3,000) over 3 years
Private refueling stations qualify for $5,000 credit (50 percent of
interest for tax credits can also be a tax credit)
ARKANSAS
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.2
$8.7 million in 1993-94 and 1994-95 to convert and provide AFVs and
infrastructure for schools and state agencies
CALIFORNIA
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.3
Air Resources Board low-emissions vehicle program mandating
zero-emission vehicles adopted September 1990
Tax credit (15 percent or $1,000)
75 percent of Petroleum Violation Escrow Account Funds defense
conversion initiatives
$1 million state matching of funds from National Energy Policy Act of
1992 for energy conversion and development programs
$1 vehicle registration fee (total $9 million per year) for clean
fuel projects
$100,000 tax deduction for clean-fuel refueling property
$2,000 tax deduction to AFVs excludes EVs
$1,000 state income tax credit limited to 750 LEVs per year (expires
December 1994)
Partial sales tax exemption for LEVs (expires December 1994)
$2 million for EV development consortium
$224,000 for EV and AFV infrastructure master plan
$5 million from state Employment Training Panel for EV development
and clean fuel vehicle industry
Requires state agency plan by 1994 to support consumer recharging and
refueling of AFVs
COLORADO
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.4
$200 rebate for clean-fuel vehicles
5-percent tax credit for EVs (not to exceed 50 percent of cost of
electric fuel system) through 1998
Rebate for certain AFVs (up to $1,000)
Mechanics certification program for AFV conversion
CONNECTICUT
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.5
Requires that 10 percent of new cars and light trucks purchased by
the state in 1993 and 1994 be powered by compressed natural gas (CNG)
or electricity (can be suspended if refueling is not available or
sufficient numbers of EVs are not available or not cost competitive)
$200,000 per year for loans and credit lines for businesses that
convert to CNG or diesel fuel and a clean alternative fuel
10-percent corporate business tax credit for purchase of EV
recharging equipment, conversion equipment for natural gas and
electricity, and the incremental cost of vehicles run exclusively on
CNG or electricity
Business tax exemptions for research, design, manufacture, sale, or
installation of vehicles powered in whole or in part by electricity,
natural gas, or solar power
Sales tax exemption for purchase of clean-fueled vehicle or
conversion equipment
10-percent tax credit for individuals and corporations on the
incremental cost of purchasing an EV
Mandated discounts for state purchases of clean-fueled vehicles
Study commissioned on adoption of California program
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.6
Requires government and private owners of fleets of 10 or more to
convert 5 percent to operate on clean alternative fuels each year
1995-2000
FLORIDA
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.7
Mandates AFVs in state agencies
Alternative fuels in all possible vehicles by 2000.
IOWA
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.8
Beginning in 1992, 5 percent of new state vehicles to be equipped for
alternative fuels; increases to 10 percent by 1994
LOUISIANA
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.9
Requires 30 percent of new state vehicles to have clean-fuel
capability by September 1994; increases to 50 percent in 1996
MAINE
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.10
Adopted California LEV program
MARYLAND
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.11
Requires adoption of California LEV standards by 2000; contingent on
similar legislation by four of the following five states by 2000:
Delaware, District of Columbia, New Jersey, Virginia, or Pennsylvania
Motor fuel tax reduced for alternative fuels (from 24.25 cents to
23.5 cents per gasoline-equivalent gallon)
Exempts from property tax certain refueling equipment and machinery
(20 percent of assessed value in tax year 1998, 40 percent in 1999,
60 percent in 2000, 80 percent in 2001, and 100 percent thereafter)
Exempts from sales and use taxes for conversion machinery or
equipment for certain fuels
State agencies and university required to purchase AFVs in accordance
with Energy Policy Act of 1992
Established an evaluation of use of AFVs in state fleet
MASSACHUSETTS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.12
Adopted California LEV program
MINNESOTA
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.13
Requires Public Utilities Commission to develop alternative fuels
infrastructure
MISSOURI
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.14
Requires conversion to AFVs of government fleets of 15 or more: 10
percent in mid-1996, 30 percent in mid-1998, 50 percent by mid-2000.
By mid-2002, 30 percent of government fleet must operate solely on
alternative fuels
NEVADA
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.15
Requires public hearings and report of use of alternative fuels;
requires adoption of conversion regulations for state and municipal
fleets
NEW HAMPSHIRE
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.16
Established a study of feasibility of introducing AFVs
NEW JERSEY
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.17
Adopted California LEV program providing that similar legislation is
passed in surrounding states (Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
York, and Pennsylvania)
NEW MEXICO
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.18
Mandates the conversion of 30 percent of new state vehicles beginning
mid-1993; percentage increases to 60 percent in 1994 and 100 percent
in 1995. Postsecondary institutions required to convert to AFVs
$5 million loan fund for conversions
NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.19
Adopted California LEV program
Exemption from retail sales tax for incremental costs of an EV and
the refueling infrastructure
New York City ordinance requires city to purchase 385 AFVs by
mid-1992 and establishes purchase schedule of alternative fuel buses
NORTH CAROLINA
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.20
Requires study of use of clean fuels in state vehicles and
development of a natural gas demonstration project for state-owned
vehicles
OKLAHOMA
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.21
$5 million loan fund for conversions (up to $5,000 for AFVS and
$100,000 for refueling stations)
10-percent discount of the entire vehicle cost (up to $1,500)
$1.5 million conversion fund for state, county, municipal, and school
district vehicles ($3,500 per conversion and $100,000 per refueling
station)
OREGON
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.22
35-percent business tax credit on purchase price of AFVs
PENNSYLVANIA
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.23
Exemption from retail sales tax for incremental costs of an EV
$3.5 million grant fund for school districts, municipalities, and
corporations for conversion or purchase of AFVs; grants cover 60
percent of eligible costs, decreasing biannually to 20 percent
Exemption from annual registration fee
RHODE ISLAND
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.24
Authority to regulate tailpipe emissions and promulgate regulations
for LEV program in 1994 if such a program is shown necessary to
attain and maintain air quality standards in the state
SOUTH CAROLINA
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.25
Established a study of clean alternative fuels
TENNESSEE
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.26
Resolution urging the development and use of environmentally
sensitive domestic alternative fuels
TEXAS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.27
Created a council to develop state AFV policy and a fund for
conversion and purchase of AFVs
VIRGINIA
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.28
Beginning in 1998, a certain percentage of new fleet purchases in
certain regions must be AFVs
Income or gross receipts tax credit of 10 percent of the amount
allowed as a deduction by the federal government for clean-fuel
vehicles and certain refueling property
Reduced fuel tax rate (from 16 cents to 10 cents per gallon)
Annual tax on vehicles that "fuel" at home and do not pay the special
fuels tax
Reductions (from 3 percent to 1.5 percent) of the tax on the sales
price of vehicles using natural gas, liquified natural and petroleum
gases, hydrogen, or electricity
WASHINGTON
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.29
Requires that 50 percent of vehicles purchased in 1992 use
alternative fuels
License fee waived from 1991-96 for taxicabs and for-hire vehicles
using alternative fuels
$132,500 fund to implement alternative fuels pilot program
Requires 30 percent of state vehicles purchased to use clean fuels
after mid-1992, increasing 5 percent each year
WEST VIRGINIA
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.30
Provides for the purchase and use of AFVs in fleets owned by
political subdivisions and states. Specifies minimum purchase
requirements for 1995-97 and continuation thereafter subject to
review of 3-year program
WISCONSIN
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:0.31
2-year program to assist municipalities in fleet conversions with up
to $30,000, or a maximum of $2,000 per vehicle
Established a task force to monitor state fleet pilot program and to
develop state policy on alternative fuels
ADVANCED BATTERY CONSORTIUM
TECHNICAL CRITERIA
========================================================= Appendix III
Table III.1
Primary Criteria With Mid-Term and Long-
Term Goals
Long-term
Primary criteria Mid-term goals goals
------------------------------------------------ -------------- --------------
Power density W/L 250 600
Specific power W/kg (80% DOD/30 sec) 150\a 400
Energy density Wh/L (C/3 discharge rate) 135 300
Specific energy Wh/kg (C/3 discharge rate) 80\b 200
Life (years) 5 10
Cycle life (cycles) 600 1,000
(80% DOD)
Power and capacity degradation 20% 20%
(% of rate spec)
Ultimate price ($/kWh) (10,000 units at 40 kWh) < 150 < $100
Operating environment -30 to 65\o C -40 to 85\o C
Recharge time < 6 hours 3 to 6 hours
Continuous discharge in 1 hour (no failure) 75%\c 75%\c
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a 200 desired.
\b 100% desired.
\c Of rated energy capacity.
Table III.2
Secondary Criteria With Mid-Term and
Long-Term Goals\a
Long-term
Secondary criteria Mid-term goals goals
------------------------------------------------ -------------- --------------
Efficiency: C/3 discharge, 6-hour charge 75% 80%
Self-discharge < 15% in 48 < 15% per
hours month
Maintenance No No
maintenance; maintenance;
service by service by
qualified qualified
personnel only personnel only
Thermal loss (for high temperature batteries) 3.2 W/Wh 3.2 W/Kwhr
15% of 15% of
capacity capacity
48-hour period 48-hour period
Abuse resistance Tolerant; Tolerant
minimized by minimized by
on-board on board
controls controls
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Criteria specified by contractor: Packaging constraints,
recyclability, environmental, impact, reliability, safety overcharge
and overdischarge, tolerance.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix IV
PROGRAM EVALUATION AND
METHODOLOGY DIVISION
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:1
Robert E. White, Assistant Director
Jacqueline D'Alessio, Project Manager
Barbara A. Chapman, Adviser
Penny Pickett, Communications Analyst
FAR EAST REGIONAL OFFICE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2
Patricia K. Yamane, Senior Evaluator
Joyce L. Akins, Evaluator
DENVER REGIONAL OFFICE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:3
Arthur Gallegos, Senior Evalutor
Alan J. Dominicci, Evaluator
DETROIT REGIONAL OFFICE
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:4
Anthony A. Krukowski, Senior Evaluator
Javier J. Garza, Evaluator
*** End of document. ***