ViewpointBatteries: Lower cost than gasoline?
Introduction
The well-to-wheel efficiency of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) is on average 2.6 times greater than that of similar performance internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles (Unnasch and Browning, 2000), and BEVs represent carbon-free transportation when electricity is generated renewably. BEVs also require significantly less maintenance and repair than ICE vehicles due to having only one moving part in the electric motor. For these reasons, BEVs are an ideal energy-efficient replacement for ICE vehicles. However, BEVs are often ruled out due to high capital cost (Borenstein, 2008). This cost grows linearly with the size of the battery pack, or the maximum range of the car. Still, this cost premium for BEVs is compensated by the low cost of electricity compared to gasoline. Our objective is to show which factors affect the cost of driving, for consumers and policy makers to use as we rethink transportation.
In 1996 General Motors introduced the first generation EV1, which ran on lead–acid batteries and had a range of 90–120 km on a full charge. The second generation EV1 used newer nickel–metal hydride batteries and could achieve a range of about 135 km. The development of lithium-ion battery technology allows for greater range, reduced weight, and approximately double the lifespan of nickel–metal hydride batteries. The more recent development of nanotechnology-based lithium batteries allows for even greater lifetime and the ability to fully charge a battery pack in under 10 min (Altairnano, 2008).
A major component of electric vehicle cost is for batteries. Lithium-ion batteries have decreased greatly in price over the last 10 years and this trend is expected to continue (Anderman, 2004). As the technology has developed, weight has also decreased (Broussely, 2004). The development of nanotechnology-based lithium-ion batteries has allowed for much faster charging and discharging along with greater lifespan, potentially up to 15,000 deep discharge cycles (Altairnano, 2008).
Section snippets
Methodology
To effectively determine the lifecycle cost we analyzed electric and ICE vehicles that are very similar: two sports cars and two economy cars. The gasoline Lotus Elise sports car and the electric Tesla Roadster are similar in dimensions and performance and are built on near-identical frames. The gasoline Scion xb is compared to the electric AC Propulsion E-box. AC Propulsion produces the E-box from a Scion xb by replacing the gasoline drive train with an electric drive train. Data for the
Results
There is a significant range of scenarios under which use of BEVs is cheaper than ICE vehicles. For a battery cost of $500/kWh, our model yields an equal cost electric range for the economy cars of 139 km if the price of gasoline remains constant at $3/gal for the next 12 years. However the equal cost electric range increases to 331 km if gasoline increases in cost to $10/gal over the next 12 years. Mass production will result in decreased cost of both the electric motors and batteries. The
Convenience
The ability to drive long distances in a single sitting has come to be assumed as part of owning a car. However, the expense, environmental impact, and political consequences of gasoline consumption compel us to consider negotiating this ability. Because 78% of Americans drive 40 miles (64 km) or less each day (Fig. 3) (DOT, 2003), the majority of our transportation needs can be met with shorter-range electric automobiles. Should someone need to drive farther than their battery capacity allows,
Power density qualification
Very short-range electric vehicles are not possible because of presently limited Li-ion battery power density of about 1 kW/kg (see supplemental online materials for accompanying paper: Fischer et al., 2009). The power requirements for the Tesla require a 200 kg battery, or a minimum range of 125 km. Additionally, in a low state of charge, the battery experiences enhanced degradation under maximum power load, which can be prevented by reducing delivered engine power when the battery is in a low
Conclusion
Because the vast majority of American travel consists of short trips as is shown in Fig. 3 (92% of trips are 35 miles or less), the use of a shorter-range, full performance electrical vehicle where appropriate can result in considerable decrease in transportation costs. Electric vehicles have the potential of being less expensive while reducing both emissions (including greenhouse gasses) as well as dependence on oil purchased from potentially unfriendly political regimes.
Acknowledgement
Acknowledgement is made to the Donors of the American Chemical Society Petroleum Research Fund and Department of the Navy, Office of Naval Research, under Award # N00014-06-1-1111, for partial support of this research.
References (9)
The challenge to fulfill electrical power requirements of advanced vehicles Fig. 4
Journal of Power Sources
(2004)- et al.
Li-ion batteries and portable power source prospects for the next 5–10 years
Journal of Power Sources
(2004) - Altairnano, 2008. Altairnano NanoSafe Battery Datasheet...
- Borenstein, 2008. Cost, conflict and climate: US challenges in the world oil market, S. Borenstein, Center for the...
Cited by (48)
Multi-objective decision-making methods for optimising CO<inf>2</inf> decisions in the automotive industry
2021, Journal of Cleaner ProductionElectric vehicle park-charge-ride programs: A planning framework and case study in Chicago
2018, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and EnvironmentIs there a near-term market for vehicle-to-grid electric vehicles?
2015, Applied EnergyCitation Excerpt :This amount is lower than what it will likely cost to have range extender. For example, in comparing lifecycle cost of an EV to a similar gasoline powered vehicle, Werber et al. [24] estimated the cost of internal combustion engine (ICE) and transmission at $7400 – much higher than the WTP value implied in our estimates. Table 5b presents parameter estimates for the class membership model.
Reference-dependent electric vehicle production strategy considering subsidies and consumer trade-offs
2014, Energy PolicyCitation Excerpt :The studies on consumer adoption of EVs are extensive, and many barriers to and facilitators of EV adoption have been identified in empirical studies. The potential barriers for consumers to adopt EVs include the high purchase cost, limited range (compounded by the user’s range anxiety effect, i.e., the user’s extreme caution about the limited cruise range powered by the electricity when planning journeys, Carroll, 2010), long recharge time, limited recharging availability, safety concerns (like batteries in collisions, etc.), consumer attitude-action gap, and unfamiliarity with EVs (Werber et al., 2009; Sovacool and Hirsh, 2009; Tsang et al., 2012; Daziano, 2013). Reductions in monetary costs, purchase tax relief, high gasoline prices, and low emission rates are the facilitators for a wider adoption of cleaner vehicles, whereas incentives such as free parking and permission to drive in high occupancy vehicle lanes have no significant effects (Potoglou and Kanaroglou, 2007; Diamond, 2009).
The optimal subsidy on electric vehicles in German metropolitan areas: A spatial general equilibrium analysis
2013, Energy EconomicsCitation Excerpt :Further, demand for EVs is currently very low despite evidence in favor of a high willingness-to-pay for EVs (e.g. Axsen and Kurani, 2012; Graham-Rowe et al., 2012).5 Studies on pure private costs and benefits of EVs including life cycle cost analyses mostly find negative private net benefits which might explain low demand (e.g. Axsen and Kurani, 2009; Carley et al., 2013; Delucchi, 2005; Delucchi and Lipman, 2001; Kurani et al., 1996; Werber et al., 2009). To foster demand it might, therefore, be appealing to grant subsidies to R&D, or the purchase and use of EVs.6