A review of Battery Electric Vehicle technology and ...

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 414–430

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

A review of Battery Electric Vehicle technology and readiness levels a,b,⁎

Amin Mahmoudzadeh Andwari Botasd, Vahid Esfahanianb

a

MARK

c

, Apostolos Pesiridis , Srithar Rajoo , Ricardo Martinez-

a Centre for Advanced Powertrain and Fuels Research (CAPF), Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, Brunel University London, UB8 3PH, UK b Vehicle, Fuel and Environment Research Institute (VFERI), School of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Iran c UTM Centre for Low Carbon Transport in Cooperation with Imperial College London (LOCARTIC), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Johor, Malaysia d Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK

A R T I C L E I N F O

A BS T RAC T

Keywords: Battery Electric Vehicles Fuel cell hybrid electric vehicle Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle Policy options Greenhouse gas Life Cycle Assessment

As concerns of oil depletion and security of supply remain as severe as ever, and faced with the consequences of climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions, Europe is increasingly looking at alternatives to traditional road transport technologies. Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) are seen as a promising technology, which could lead to the decarbonisation of the Light Duty Vehicle fleet and to independence from oil. However it still has to overcome some significant barriers to gain social acceptance and obtain appreciable market penetration. This review evaluates the technological readiness of the different elements of BEV technology and highlights those technological areas where important progress is expected. Techno-economic issues linked with the development of BEVs are investigated. Current BEVs in the market need to be more competitive than other low carbon vehicles, a requirement which stimulates the necessity for new business models. Finally, the all-important role of politics in this development is, also, discussed. As the benefit of BEVs can help countries meet their environmental targets, governments have included them in their roadmaps and have developed incentives to help them penetrate the market.

1. Introduction Road based transportation accounts for a large share of Europe CO2 emissions, 22% in the UK [1,2]. A growing concern about climate change triggered agreements between EU countries to cut their emissions by 80% by 2050 to stabilise atmospheric CO2 at 450 ppm in order to keep global warming under 2 °C. The effort is shared between different sectors, and the road transport sector is expected to reduce its emissions by 95% [3–6]. Moreover, it is highly dependent on oil, which raises resource depletion and security of supply concerns. Lastly, urban pollution due to vehicle use causes health problems. This is why it is considered as crucial to develop low carbon and oil independent transport solutions [7–11]. Improvements in efficiency of current vehicles, biofuels and electric powertrains are three solutions being considered to tackle this issue. However as an increase in the

number of passengers has been forecasted [12–14], total independence on oil and zero tailpipe emissions technologies will probably be needed in the long term [15–18]. Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) satisfy these two conditions. Their principle is simple: an electric motor powered by a battery replaces the Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle (ICEV) and the tank, and the vehicle is plugged to a charging spot when it is not in use [19–21]. They have many advantages: they are highly efficient, do not produce tailpipe emissions which is beneficial for local air quality, they have good acceleration, can be charged overnight on low cost electricity produced by any type of power station, including renewables [21–23]. However despite these advantages, BEVs, also, face significant challenges. Electricity storage is still expensive and the charging of the battery is time consuming; this is why the range of these vehicles is limited. A charging spot infrastructure must be in place before any

Abbreviations and acronyms: AC, Alternating Current; BEV, Battery Electric Vehicle; BMS, Battery Management System; CO2, Carbon Dioxide; DC, Direct Current; DECC, Department of Energy and Climate Change; EPA, Environmental Protection Agency; EU, European Union; EV, Electric Vehicle; FCEV, Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle; FCHEV, Fuel Cell Hybrid Electric Vehicle; FCV, Fuel Cell Vehicle; GHG, Greenhouse Gas; ICE, Internal Combustion Engine; ICEV, Internal Combustion Electric Vehicle; IEA, International Energy Agency; kWh, kilowatt hour; LCA, Life Cycle Assessment; LDV, Light Duty Vehicle; Li-Ion, Lithium-ion; LPG, Liquefied Petroleum Gas; Na/NiCl2, Sodium Nickel Chloride; Ni-MH, Nickel Metal Hydride; NOx, Nitric Oxide; PHEV, Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle; PM, Permanent Magnet; ppm, part per million; SOx, Sulphur Oxide; USABC, United States Advanced Battery Consortium; USD, United States Dollar; VAT, Value-Added Tax; V2G, Vehicle to Grid ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Mahmoudzadeh Andwari). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.138 Received 29 October 2015; Received in revised form 17 February 2017; Accepted 21 March 2017 Available online 04 May 2017 1364-0321/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.


A. Mahmoudzadeh Andwari et al.

Fig. 1. Specific energy and power of the main battery technologies.

possible evolutions of this readiness up to 2050: a timeline and an evolution are added to the previous work; the assumptions necessary to build this projection are available in Section 4. The last goal is an assessment of the satisfaction of customers’ needs and requirements in term of range, from a technological perspective.

market penetration, and the corresponding investment is important. In addition, primary resource depletion concerns have been raised for some elements of the battery. The impact of BEVs on the grid could be damaging [24]. However, the most difficult issue is the social acceptance of these vehicles, which is the final great hurdle before BEVs can penetrate the market to any significant extent. Their high capital cost is a barrier for consumers and their low running cost has low visibility. The ‘range anxiety’ is probably the most important barrier: as the range is lower than for conventional vehicles, and charging takes time, consumers fear that they will not be able to complete their journey. This problem is exacerbated by the insufficient charging infrastructure [25–27]. However, most governments’ roadmaps plan an important role for BEVs as they have a high potential for technological improvement. Moreover, new business models have been developed to compensate some of their disadvantages and policies have been implemented to support their development [28]. This review study aims to analyse the barriers for market penetration of BEVs, including social acceptance, and the solutions, which have been developed from the point of view of existing literature. Moreover the technological readiness of different components of BEVs is analysed along with their targets and their potential for development. In the meanwhile, the techno-economic issues linked with the development of BEVs and the business models, which have been designed as a solution to those problems, are presented and discussed. Lastly, the role of BEVs in the political roadmap-shaping is discussed which have already been taken or that can further be taken to support the increase of their market penetration.

3. Technological readiness of the components of BEV 3.1. Batteries The technological readiness of batteries, the energy storage system of a BEV, is a crucial problem in the development and market penetration of BEVs. As the key component it is presented first in this section. 3.1.1. Key Requirements of the battery system The key parameters for a comparison of batteries are the energy density, the power density, the cycle life, calendar life, and the cost per kWh [29]. Volume and safety are also mentioned. To a lesser extent, energy efficiency and self-discharge are also considered. Each technology and each battery is designed following a trade-off between energy and power density [30,31]. For BEVs the battery is generally sized by the energy requirements to allow a certain range to be reached [32]. It must be noted that the relationship between car range and battery capacity is not linear as the important additional weight of the battery (between 150 and 500 kg for a range of about 150 km) reduces the efficiency on the road. This is why it is important to compare batteries according to their energy and power densities. Fig. 1 illustrates the range of specific power and specific energy for different battery technologies [33]. It can be noted that they differ greatly from one technology to another and that for a given technology the design allows for additional trade-offs between power and energy. United States Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC) has set a specific power goal of 150 kW/kg to allow long term commercialisation of BEVs, and a long term goal of 200 kW/kg [30]. It can be seen on the graph that the technology was still far of this goal in 2020. The price of the battery represents an important share of the total cost of BEVs, which is why it is crucial to reduce it. The USABC evaluated the maximum price compatible with an important market share of BEVs was USD 150/kWh (with a long term goal of USD 100/ kWh) [29]. International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated that in order for BEV to be competitive the battery prices would have to be under USD 300/kWh [34,35]. Fig. 2 shows the result of a price assumption for Li-ion batteries up to 2030 [36–38]. Technological improvements and breakthroughs are expected in this analysis, resulting in an

2. Methodology In this study through a previous literature review the barriers of market penetration of BEVs, including social acceptance, and the solutions, which have been developed are analysed. As the situation has evolved quickly in the last decade, it focused mainly on the publications of the past five years. It first analysed the technological readiness of the different components of BEVs, their targets and their potential for development. Secondly it studied the techno-economic issues linked with the development of BEVs and the business models, which have been designed as a solution to those problems. Finally, it determined the role of BEVs in government’s targets and the measures, which have been or could be taken to support their penetration. In this work, a program is designed including three main goals, closely interlinked. The first one is to display the study of the technological and cost readiness levels of BEV components (based on the literature review), which are detailed in Section 3. The second one is to assess 415



Fig. 2. A McKinsey analysis of Lithium-ion battery cost evolution, assuming learning effects and technology breakthroughs.

USD 700/kWh, Fig. 2), it presents safety issues (overcharging can cause fires and destruction) [49,50] and the energy density is still insufficient to satisfy the needs of the market. In addition, material availability concerns have been raised [51–54].

important price reduction by 2020 with a battery price below $500/ kWh. However, this price is still much higher than the objectives of the USABC and IEA and too high for a quick introduction of BEVs in the market. Finally, the cycle and calendar lives are important parameters in the choice of the battery. If they are inferior to the life of the vehicle, and the battery has to be changed after a few years, the cost of ownership of the vehicle increases greatly. The USABC aims at a 10 year, 1000 cycles (with a 80% depth of discharge) life. It depends greatly on how the battery is used (e.g. rate of discharge, charge and temperature of operation). The Battery Management System, which is studied in section 2.2, is crucial to improving the lifespan but also the safety of the battery [29].

There is a large variety of Lithium-ion chemistries, with different characteristics and degrees of maturity. They are compared in Table 1. More generally, the state-of-the-art of Lithium batteries, as well as the short and long-term possible evolutions, are discussed in detail in [44,55,56]. 3.1.2.4. Sodium Nickel Chloride (Na/NiCl2, Zebra) battery. This technology has many advantages. It is considered as safe and low cost (one third of the price of Li-ion batteries), with a long cycle life (superior to 1000 cycles) and can be discharged almost completely without degrading its life expectancy. However, despite a satisfying specific energy, comparable to Li-ion’s (about 120 Wh/kg), its specific power is much lower, 150W/kg. Because of this, it is not considered to power BEVs on its own; however it could be used in association with power sources such as supercapacitors [57].

3.1.2. Principal battery technologies 3.1.2.1. Lead acid battery. As seen in Fig. 1, this technology has low specific energy, typically between 20 and 40 Wh/kg [39]. A range of 200 km would necessitate about 150 kg of Lithium-ion batteries but more than 500 kg of lead acid cells [40]. Also, its cycle and calendar life is short compared to other technologies such as Nickel Metal Hydride [30]. Moreover, it is a mature and well known technology and the potential for its improvement it is low. This is why it is not being considered for use in future BEVs. However, its low cost (about USD 100/kWh) makes it appropriate for use with low performance, small range neighbourhood vehicles [29].

3.1.3. Prospects The above list of battery technologies is far from being exhaustive. Others have or are being considered. Large investments are allocated by governments to fund research in this area, for instance in Europe, Japan and the USA, and many different alternatives are studied [44,58–60]. In the short term, the use of numerous new materials has been considered [33,61–63], as well as design improvements. In the long term, other possibilities such as lithium sulphur, organic materials or nanostructures are being considered [42,64–66]. For instance, the prospects of Lithium air battery have been studied [67–

3.1.2.2. Nickel Metal Hydride battery (Ni-MH). This technology has been recently used in Hybrid Vehicles (such as Toyota Prius for instance). The costs were around USD 700–800/kWh [29] and, therefore, less expensive than Li-ion batteries. Ni-MH battery technology is considered a mature technology, however, which has reached its best potential, both in cost reduction and characteristics. As seen in Fig. 1, its energy density is between 60 and 80 Wh/kg [41] and it is considered as insufficient for the needs of BEVs.

Table 1 Comparison of different Lithium-ion battery technologies [21,23,32].

3.1.2.3. Lithium-ion batteries (Li-Ion). This technology is considered as the most promising for the near future by a majority of literary sources. This is why in most of the reports the Lithium-ion technology is the only one studied in detail [14,18,19] among others. It has high energy density, because lithium possesses both the highest electrochemical potential and a low equivalent mass [43]. It has high efficiency and a long lifespan [44,45] and its potential to improve is considered as very high [46–48]. However it is expensive (more than 416

Technology

Advantages

Disadvantages

Lithium Cobalt Oxide (LiCoO2) Nickel Cobalt and Aluminium (NCA) Nickel Manganese Cobalt (NMC) Lithium Polymer (LiMnO4) Lithium ion phosphate (LiFePO4)

Power and energy density

Safety, cost

Power and energy density, calendar and cycle life Power and energy density, Cycle and calendar life Power density

Safety

Safety

Energy density, calendar life

Safety Calendar life



mechanical energy is high at between 70% and 95% [89]. They have high torque and power density and better torque characteristics at low speed. Moreover, it is possible to use electric motors as generators during braking to recover energy. The drivers appreciate the fact that they are quiet and offer a rapid and smooth acceleration. Furthermore, electric motors are robust and reliable with reasonable cost [90]. However, their efficiency varies with torque and speed, being higher at high torque and low speed. Power electronics, needed to adapt the voltage of the battery to maximize the efficiency of the motor, will be studied in the next paragraph. Different types of electric motors exist. DC motors used to be considered as the most suitable technology for EVs. They are the least complicated and the least expensive due to their simple control electronics. However they require regular maintenance due to the presence of commutators and brushes, which are in contact and are prone to wear down. This feature makes the technology unsuitable for widespread adoption of BEVs. AC motors are less expensive, however they require complicated and costly power electronics, including an inverter as the power source - the batteries - provide DC current [91]. The overall cost of AC motors is higher. Their advantages are a higher power density, which is very important in an automotive application as it allows use of a smaller and lighter motors, and higher efficiency, which maximizes the range for a given battery capacity. Three main types of AC motors are typically considered for BEV use: induction, switched reluctance and permanent magnet (PM) brushless motor [90]. Induction motors are low cost, reliable, and free from maintenance compared to DC motors. A specific control system is necessary, but many improvements have been made in recent years. Switched reluctance motors are considered to have high potential. Their construction is simple, their manufacturing cost low, and their torque-speed characteristic are an interesting case in connection to BEV use. However, their control and design is difficult, and acoustic noise problems are still in need to be resolved. Finally, with the improvement of permanent magnet materials, PM motors have, also, become very attractive. They offer high efficiency, high power density and reliability. However, their cost remains high due to the permanent magnetic materials. It is currently seen as the best technology for small and moderate power needs, between 25 and 150 kW, which corresponds to the needs of Light Duty Vehicles (LDVs) [29]. For instance, a 47 kW PM motor has been chosen by Mitsubishi for the i-MiEV [90,92]. It includes the topology of the motor but also the drive operation and control strategies, as these issues are crucial to maximising its efficiency. Even if electric motors are a tried and tested technology, their application in the automotive powertrain application area brings new constraints with respect to weight, robustness and reliability. Future possible improvements of current electric motors include a reduction in the cost of high temperature permanent magnets, the development of controllers for safer operation of subsystems, and a decrease in the number of sensors in the motor [93].

Fig. 3. Battery block principles.

69] with the conclusion that it is a potentially promising technology for the long term. It could allow batteries to catch up with the energy density of gasoline and offer high range (ideally in the order of 800 km) that Lithium-ion technology seems unlikely to reach. No matter the technology, improvements in battery cost and lifespan could also come from better battery management systems. 3.2. Battery management systems Battery management systems (BMS) have two main roles: the first one is to monitor the battery to determine information such as its State of Charge, State of Health (the ability of the battery to deliver its specified output) and Remaining Useful Life. These parameters are crucial for users as well as to optimize the charge and discharge processes and must be communicated to on-board systems (safety system, communication with the driver, engine management) [70]. Different modelling methods have been proposed in the literature [71– 76]. The second role is to operate the battery in a safe, efficient and nondamaging way. As can be seen Fig. 3, battery blocks are composed of cells arranged in parallel and series to meet the needs of the engine [77]. As those cell characteristics can differ slightly, it is necessary to balance the charge between each cell to prevent damage and improve the lifetime of the stack. Passive balancing methods have been used, during charge, using dissipation through resistors, but it is not an efficient solution. Second generation batteries will probably rely on active cell balancing, one method being presented in [78,79]. It involves voltage and current monitoring in each cell, and temperature monitoring in multiple points to ensure that none of the cell is functioning outside its operational conditions. The benefits offered are a longer calendar and cycle life, increased safety and a higher power capability for a relatively small cost increase. It is particularly important for Lithium-ion technologies since, despite their promises, they can be damaged and present a risk of fire or explosion if they are managed incorrectly [29,80], and their high cost makes even more crucial an increase in their cycle and calendar lives. In order to meet these goals, mathematical models of the behaviour of each battery technology have been elaborated [81]. It has been proposed models that take into account the change in capacity and impedance of batteries during their lifetime (decreasing the available power), the model allowing for the monitoring and prediction of degradation, and the development of advanced charging algorithms to maximize the battery life [82–84]. These, however, necessitate from cell manufacturers a high level of consistency in their products [85]. It is believed that advanced BMS can significantly improve the efficiency of BEVs [86] and extend the life of batteries [87]. As these two parameters are crucial for both range and life cycle cost of BEVs, improvements in this technology could mitigate the current social acceptance difficulties [88].

3.4. Power electronics This important component of BEVs is less well covered in literature on Electric Vehicles (EVs). However, they represent an important share of the total cost of the vehicle, almost as important as the battery on a kWe basis [40]. This area has a high potential for cost reduction. As it has been discussed previously, power electronics are the intermediate between the battery, a DC current source, and the AC motor. It is composed of a DC/AC inverter, which controls the voltage fed to the engine through switching devices. Control algorithms specific to each type of motor ensure that it operates at highest efficiency. The efficiency of power electronics is typically between 95% and 98% [29]. In the past decade, the performances of semiconductor switching devices have significantly improved in cost and reliability [30].

3.3. Electric motors Electric motors have many advantages over internal combustion engines [30]. The efficiency of the conversion from electrical to 417



conversions. The Chevrolet Volt is an example of an electric vehicle with a range extender [102]. Some of its characteristics are displayed in Table 2, alongside a BEV without range extender as a comparison. It can be noticed that the Volt has a much higher total range even if its battery capacity is 27% lower. Even if the technical readiness of Fuel Cell Hybrid Electric Vehicles (FCHEVs) is much lower compared to ICEV, this technology is considered very promising [103]. It has been demonstrated that FCHEVs with a downsized fuel cell as a range extender will be economically attractive compared to BEV and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV) by 2030 (and possibly compared to ICE on lifecycle cost depending on fuel costs [104]). The optimum battery size has been estimated at about 10kWh which would allow 80% of the mileage to be driven by electricity and 20% by hydrogen [105]. A fuel cell range extender has been designed and tested by Imperial Racing Green, an undergraduate project of Imperial College, on an operational highpowered motorsport electric vehicle [106]. A 4 kW polymer electrolyte membrane fuel cell range extender was connected to the 7.25 kWh and 100 kW peak power battery pack. This design was specific to the motorsport environment, where higher cost was allowable, however it was a valid demonstration and testing of the technology [107]. Range extenders could be the solution to free BEVs from ‘range anxiety’ issues and lower the capital costs by downsizing the battery.

Magnetic components and capacitors have progressed as well, so that they can be used in high frequency power electronics. However, many improvements still need to be made; these are described in [93,94]. The components such as diodes and switches need to resist to both high temperature and high levels of vibrations. Capacitors need to be improved, and dielectric materials investigated. Inverters must be simplified and, ideally, integrate electromagnetic interference filters as well as being fault tolerant. The main challenge remains the configuring of a higher resistance to heat or better cooling systems and the reduction of the volume of the devices so that they can be more suitable for the automotive industry [95]. 3.5. Weight and aerodynamics Even if this issue is not specific to BEV, improving the aerodynamic efficiency of the vehicle and reducing its weight is crucial for electric vehicles in order to maximize their range within a given battery. As it is explained in the Grantham Institute for Climate Change Briefing paper No 2 on Road transport technology and climate change mitigation [96], it can be done by weight reduction, through aerodynamic improvements or rolling resistance reduction. The size of the vehicle and of the engine will have to continue being reduced. Materials can be changed with steel being replaced by aluminium, plastic and composites for example. However, the additional cost is potentially very high, and it raises safety issues. The car must be designed accordingly to minimise weight. Low resistance tyres and pressure monitoring systems are, also, in need of implementation [97–99].

3.7. Supercapacitors

3.6. Range extender

Supercapacitors, or ultracapacitors, have been developed since about 1990 [30]. They are characterized by a higher power density and a longer life cycle, but a lower energy density than batteries [108,109]. This low energy density makes them unsuitable as the sole power source for a BEV [110]. However, a combination of a supercapacitor with a battery through a DC/DC converter is very promising [111]. Decoupling the vehicle’s needs in energy and power is made possible through improvements in power electronics [41]: the supercapacitor’s role is not to deliver energy during a cycle but to smooth out the energy delivered by the battery. Its higher power density increases the efficiency of regeneration, and by consequence the range, and improves the acceleration [111]. Moreover it smoothes out the current fluctuation in the battery, reducing its temperature and so increasing the life of the battery. It would allow the industry to focus on high energy density batteries instead of costly compromises between power and energy. It is much more resistant to very low temperatures [39]. J.Dixon [57] studied the association of supercapacitors with a ZEBRA battery and concluded that this association was very promising. This battery is three times less expensive than a Li-ion battery but is not currently used because its power density is about three times lower. However associated with a supercapacitor it provides excellent performance, as well as higher simplicity and safety. Moreover it has no scarcity of resource issues [51]. However, as a supercapacitor can store a limited amount of energy, it causes losses in case of a long high power requirement or regeneration such as a hill [57]. Supercapacitors are used in the Pininfarina Bluecar [112].

The main weakness of BEVs is their low range. A solution to this problem is to include a range extender power generating system, either a small internal combustion engine associated with a generator or a fuel cell, which can produce electricity to charge the battery when it is needed. The principle of range extended vehicles, which are series hybrid vehicles (with a relatively smaller engine and tank), is explained in Fig. 4 [91]. Compared to a simple BEV, an engine and a generator (or a fuel cell) are connected through a power converter with the battery [100]. When the energy provided by the battery is sufficient to meet the needs of the users, the engine is not in use. However, when the range provided by the battery is insufficient, the engine is turned on, and consumes diesel or gasoline to generate mechanical energy [101]. It is converted into electrical energy through a generator. Electricity is then either stored, or consumed into the electric motor to power the vehicle. On short trips the vehicle functions like a BEV; however the total range of the vehicle is much higher. The range extender allows for a lower battery capacity, which requires a compromise in the design. If battery capacity is over-specified the initial cost for the consumer is too high and the weight of the vehicle is greater. On the contrary, an undersized battery would increase the duration of use of the ICE, and the users loose the benefits of pure electric propulsion, whereas the efficiency of the internal combustion engine is lower than a normal Internal Combustion Electric Vehicle (ICEV) because of additional energy

Fig. 4. Principle of ICE series hybrid vehicles.

418



Table 2 Comparison between two EVs with and without a range extender [76,103]. Model

Year of release

Range extender

Battery Capacity

Battery technology

Range on electricity

Total range

Chevrolet Volt Renault Fluence ZE

2014 2015

1.4 L ICE (gasoline) N/A

16 kWh 22 kWh

Lithium-ion Lithium-ion

< 60 km 185 km

> 480 km 185 km

circuit and stationary charger (depending on the type of housing, apartment or individual housing) [46]. However, in urban areas some residents do not possess private parking space. Public charging spots, in commercial areas, in workplaces or on roadsides, are, therefore, necessary. Manufacturers such as Schneider Electric have developed charging points which can be associated with RFID cards to allow for a simple subscription scheme for the users [122], as can be seen in Fig. 5. They must be installed ahead of the demand to enable market penetration of BEVs. A restriction would fuel the ‘range anxiety’ of users: a degree of underutilisation must be tolerated. This issue is described in [2]. The report estimates the manufacture and installation cost of such public charging spots between £5000 and £7000. This significant cost implies the creation of a strong business model to finance the infrastructure. Moreover, the charging points must be compatible with all the vehicles in order to reduce the investment needed.

3.8. Charging The charging infrastructure is crucial for the social acceptance of BEVs as “range anxiety” could be attenuated by a suitable network of charging points. Different technical solutions have been developed and these are presented below [113–116]. 3.8.1. Conductive charge This type of charge is the most common and is favoured in Europe. The vehicle is charged through a cable plugged to the electrical grid [117]. This method is efficient, light, compact, and allows bi-directional power flows [46]. However, safety concerns have been raised [118]. The cord between the plug and the vehicle, in public places and garages, could prove to be a safety hazard by tripping up pedestrians or car owners. The line carries high voltage and current: electric vehicle supply equipment must be designed to stop the power flow if the cord connector is not plugged properly. There are three different standards of conductive charging [46]. Level 1 is 220 V AC in the EU and 15 to 20 A (120 V AC in the US). It is the most common solution as it corresponds to residential and commercial voltages and do not require the installation of new networks. It can fully charge a vehicle in 5 to 8 h. Level 2 is 220 V AC and up to 40 A and requires a new circuit. Level 3 charge, also called Fast Charge, could be 480 V AC and 3 phase circuit with power between 60 and 150 kW. It requires a specific network and strict safety measures. It aims to charge the battery in less than 10 min The role of fast charging has been discussed in literature [29,119– 121]. The battery life is usually maximised for specific rates of recharge and could be reduced by faster rates. It must be specifically designed to withstand higher temperatures. Moreover, the discharge and spark risks are more acute than with level 1 and 2 charging because of the higher voltage and current involved. The charger should monitor the battery chemistry to prevent any damage. In addition, the on-board charger must be able to withstand fast-charging conditions, and this incurs an increase in the cost of the vehicle. It is considered as an optional and emergency solution for cars. This report advised implementing pricing strategies that would discourage frequent uses of this method. Individual charging points would be needed in order to charge the vehicle at home (Fig. 5) [122], when it is not in use, estimated the cost at USD 878 for a level 1 charging point with on board charger and cable, and from USD 1520–2146 for a level 2 spot with a dedicated

3.8.2. Battery switching stations. Battery swapping is the quickest charging solution. Instead of having to wait for the battery to charge, it is directly replaced by an already fully charged one at designated stations. This solution faces four main difficulties. First, a high tension and high energy electric connection in the car has to be physically opened. It could provoke sparks and discharge, or at the least degrading of the contacts [123]. Secondly, those stations necessitate an important and expensive infrastructure to recharge, as well as to monitor and store them as well as a significant number of batteries [124]. Thirdly, BEVs must be specifically designed with a switchable battery, and this is not the case for most of the recently commercialised models. Lastly, a high level of standardization is vital. The existence on the market of a high number of different and non-compatible battery packs would force these stations to store each type of battery, increasing the storage capacity needed and therefore the investment [125,126]. The EASYBAT project, which had recently been approved by the European Commission, aimed to facilitate the commercialisation of BEVs with switchable batteries [127]. This consortium was coordinated by Better Place and includes Continental and Renault SA, but also research institutes, and standardization organisations. It targets the connector interfaces of electrical and information networks, and the interfaces to switch the battery. If this project was successful, the development of common components and interfaces should have allowed the design of switch stations compatible with a variety of car models and battery types. Better Place developed switch stations for its customers, which can be seen in Fig. 6 [127]. The principle is simple: the car enters a lane, and gets on a conveyor belt. The battery is removed from under the vehicle, and replaced by a fully charged one. Batteries are recharged and stored under the building. This solution is advertised as being quicker than an ICEV stop at a petrol station [127]. This solution is suitable for schemes where the consumer does not own its battery pack. It must be noted that it would be much more complicated to implement this system otherwise. 3.8.3. Inductive chargers. Inductive Coupling Power Transfer uses magnetic induction between specially designed transformers to transmit energy [128]. The idea seems promising, as the infrastructure, under the road surface, would be invisible and

Fig. 5. Charging spots of the manufacturer Schneider Electric.

419



Fig. 6. Better place battery switch station. Fig. 7. Estimation of CO2 emissions and range of medium size vehicles of different technologies in 2010 and 2050.

unobtrusive. Users would just have to stop for a while during their trip on special parking spaces to charge the battery. The main advantage of this method, used mainly in Japan and in the US, is its safety [46]. The risk of tripping on a cable, or of sparks, does not exist. However, the efficiency, under 90% (and highly dependent on the position of the car and the distance between the emitter and the battery) is lower than for conductive charging [129]. Moreover, the electromagnetic emission emitted by the charger might affect the electronics of the car: the resistance of cars to such emissions may need to be improved.

promising technologies. However the future car market will probably be composed of a mix of technologies as they have complementary roles [3]: each technology presents a different compromise between emissions and range (Fig. 7). 4.2. Resource depletion of lithium As discussed earlier Lithium batteries were expected to be the dominant technology in BEV. However concerns have been raised about the availability of lithium in order to satisfy the rise in demand inherent to the development of BEV [2,66]. A rapid increase in demand could lead to a shortage of lithium, increased market price and a decrease in competitiveness for BEVs. The other elements of Lithiumion batteries are more abundant and generate less concern [137]. Fig. 8 shows the geographical repartition of known lithium resources [138]. These figures are susceptible to rise in the next years as the interest in Lithium ion batteries grows: in 2007 the same report estimated the global known lithium resources under 14 million tons [139]. In 2010 world reserves were estimated at 9.9 million tons of lithium. Since 2009, exploration and claims have been numerous, mainly in Nevada, Argentina, Bolivia and Canada, despite a reduction in lithium demand in 2009 [138]. Europe has no big deposits [43], and 74% of known resources are in South America. It could be seen as a geopolitical risk [51] to heavily rely on this region. Batteries, including those for applications such as cell phones or computers, represent 23% of the global end-use market for lithium [138]. Ceramics and glass are the most important market, but it is also used for lubricating greases and other markets. The competition for the resource is not limited to the automotive industry, which increases concerns. The total lithium required for a BEV with a range of 100 miles is between 3.38 kg and 12.68 kg depending on the type of battery [137]; if we take into account the other end-use for lithium, 50% of the 2010 estimation of world reserves would be sufficient to manufacture between 390,000 and 1465 million of such vehicles [140].

Vehicles must be specially designed to use inducting charge. This method has not been selected by carmakers in their models of BEVs released in 2014 or 2015 Mitsubishi, Renault, Nissan, and Tesla for instance, [92,130,131]. In order to achieve market penetration of BEVs, techno-economics issues must be resolved in addition to the technical objectives on the different components of BEVs that we studied. 4. Techno-economics of BEV 4.1. Comparison of other low emission vehicles Different alternatives to BEVs exist that could both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the dependency on oil in the transportation sector. They have been described in the Grantham Institute for Climate Change Briefing paper No 2 [96]. First of all, ICEV efficiency could be improved, and their emissions reduced. This solution is the cheapest; however it will never be a zero-emission technology. Biofuels are in development to reduce the dependency on oil. Parallel hybrid vehicles, or series hybrids, are also a good alternative to BEVs, particularly for long distance uses or for larger cars, because they have a higher range from a smaller battery capacity, and therefore a lower price. FCEVs are also an alternative, because of their high efficiency [132–134]. As can be seen Fig. 7 [3] they are the lowest emission solution for long trips and medium to large vehicles [36]. However the cost of fuel cells is still very high compared to ICEs, and the infrastructure needed is more complex than for electric vehicles. Finally, FCHEVs with the synergy of a fuel cell, batteries and/or supercapacitors, is yet another promising alternative for the medium-to-long term [135]. Comparisons of different types of vehicles are numerous in literature, focusing on different aspects of this subject. The efficiency and cost efficiency of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEVs) and BEVs are compared in [46]. The technology, infrastructure and cost of ownership of BEVs, FCEVs and FCHEVs are compared in [40] and [104]. Infrastructure, energy security benefits, emissions, and probability of market dominance of EVs and Hydrogen vehicles are compared in [136]. It is crucial to identify the potential of each alternative in order to direct the expenditure of R & D on the most

Fig. 8. World identified lithium resources.

420

2015/16

2015

BYD e6 [159]

Chevrolet Spark EV [160] Chevrolet Volt (PHEV) [161] Fiat 500e [162]

421

2014/17

2015/17

2016

Nissan Leaf [168]

Smart electric drive [169] Tesla Model S (60 kWh) [170] Tesla Model S (85 kWh) [171] Toyota Prius (HEV) [172] Toyota RAV4 EV [173] 78 mpg-e (43 kWh/100 mi)

126 mpg-e (27 kWh/100 mi) 126 mpg-e (27 kWh/100 mi) 122 mpg-e (28 kWh/100 mi) 94 mpg-e (36 kWh/100 mi) 88 mpg-e (38 kWh/100 mi) 51 mpg

122 mpg-e (28 kWh/100 mi) 110 mpg-e (31 kWh/100 mi) 132 mpg-e (26 kWh/100 mi) 120 mpg-e (29 kW-h/ 100 mi) 85 mpg-e (40 kWh/100 mi)

137 mpg-e (25 kWh/100 mi) 61 mpg-e (55 kWh/100 mi) 128 mpg-e (26 kWh/100 mi) NA/35 mpg

EPA rated City fuel economy

74 mpg-e (46 kWh/ 100 mi)

99 mpg-e (34 kWh/ 100 mi) 101 mpg-e (33 kWh/ 100 mi) 93 mpg-e (36 kWh/ 100 mi) 97 mpg-e (35 kWh/ 100 mi) 90 mpg-e (37 kWh/ 100 mi) 48 mpg

83 mpg-e (41 kWh/ 100 mi)

108 mpg-e (31 kWh/ 100 mi) 99 mpg-e (34 kWh/ 100 mi) 105 mpg-e (32 kWh/ 100 mi) 92 mpg-e (37 kW-h/ 100 mi)

111 mpg-e (30 kWh/ 100 mi) 65 mpg-e (52 kWh/ 100 mi) 109 mpg-e (31 kWh/ 100 mi) NA/40 mpg

EPA rated Highway fuel economy

$1.32

$1.74

$1.14

$850

$1050

$700

$650

$600

$0.96 $1.05

$550

$550

$700

$600

$500

$600

$500

$900

$500

$950

$500

Annual fuel cost

$0.90

$0.90

$1.20

$0.96

$0.87

$0.96

$0.87

$1.05/ $2.57

$0.84

$1.62

$0.81

Cost to drive 25 miles

- All estimated fuel costs based on 15,000 miles annual driving, 45% highway and 55% city. - The utility factor represents, on average, the percentage of miles that will be driven using electricity by an average driver.

2013/16

2012/17

2013/16

76 mpg-e (44 kWh/ 100 mi)

112 mpg-e (30 kWh/ 100 mi) 114 mpg-e (30 kWh/ 100 mi) 107 mpg-e (32 kWh/ 100 mi) 95 mpg-e (35 kWh/ 100 mi) 89 mpg-e (38 kWh/ 100 mi) 50 mpg

2016

Mercedes-Benz BClass Electric Drive [166] Mitsubishi i [167]

2014/17

84 mpg-e (40 kWh/ 100 mi)

2016

2015

2014/16

2014/17

124 mpg-e (27 kWh/ 100 mi) 63 mpg-e (54 kWh/ 100 mi) 119 mpg-e (28 kWh/ 100 mi) 98 mpg-e (35 kWh/ 100 mi)/37 mpg 116 mpg-e (29 kWh/ 100 mi) 105 mpg-e (32 kWh/ 100 mi) 118 mpg-e (29 kWh/ 100 mi) 105 mpg-e (32 kWh/ 100 mi)

EPA rated Combined fuel economy

Kia Soul EV [165]

Ford Focus Electric [163] Honda Fit EV [164]

2014/16

BMW i3 [158]

2013/15

Model Year

Vehicle

Table 3 Comparison of all EVs rated by the EPA for the U.S in terms of fuel efficiency, costs, tailpipe and upstream CO2 emissions.

1

–

– 76

1

1

1

1

1

89

95

107

114

112

1

–

–

84

1

1

1

0.66

1

1

1

Utility factor (share EV miles)

118

105

116

62

119

63

124

Overall fuel economy (mpge)

0

–

0

0

0

0

0

0

–

0

0

0

81

0

0

0

Tailpipe CO2 (g/mi)

153

–

131

122

109

104

104

138

–

99

111

101

180

97

187

93

287

–

246

229

204

194

195

259

–

185

208

189

249

181

350

175

436

–

374

348

311

296

296

394

–

281

316

288

326

276

532

266

Tailpipe+total upstream CO2 Low (g/ Ave (g/ High (g/ mi) mi) mi)





Fig. 9. Estimation of the capital cost of a medium size BEV.

limited by the current carrying capacity of the lines and cables connecting the vehicle to the grid, and by its battery capacity, however if the market penetration of BEVs (and PHEVs to a lesser extent) is high enough, the overall capacity could become significant. The challenges of V2G are the creation of communication standards and networks between the vehicles and the grid operators, and the integration of a smart device, which controls the energy flow by taking into account the needs of the users. It could represent a significant extra cost to the vehicle, and must be compensated by attractive pricing [150]. An aggregator, in charge of the control of a group of loads, would be needed to coordinate the communications between the grid operator and the vehicles [151]. However, as the battery life depends on the number of charge and discharge cycles, V2G could become a contributor to lower life expectancy of batteries. Given their cost, it would negatively impact the cost attractiveness of the scheme. If BEVs are charged during off-peak period, they could have a positive impact on the cost of electricity. More electricity could be sold without any major reinforcement of the network required. The network charges per kWh, which currently represents up to 20% of the electricity bill in the UK, could be reduced [1].

In a broader sense, the availability of lithium is a controversial issue. The lithium supply was considered as insufficient for the development of lithium-ion BEV on a large scale by [51,52], however his conclusions were questioned by [141,142] who concluded that the resource depletion concern was unfounded. These evaluations of lithium resources differ greatly. The more common conclusion is that lithium supply will be sufficient for a few decades [137], even if, to mitigate the issue, it is often seen as necessary to reduce the quantity of lithium used in one battery and to develop recycling [40,143]. 4.3. Impact on the grid Concerns have been raised on the technical and economic impact of an increased number of BEVs on the grid. This problem is all the more acute as BEV numbers are likely to be concentrated in some areas [144]. The power required during charging, and more acutely during fast charging, is significant. Local transformers are the weakest link in the transmission and distribution system: such an increase in power demand could cause their overheating and destruction [145]. Another issue is a possible imbalance of the 3 phase system if the new loads are not equally distributed [118]. To solve these issues, a detailed analysis of the local distribution of those areas should be carried out to identify the areas where the distribution system needs to be reinforced. Users should be encouraged to charge their vehicles overnight through dedicated pricing schemes [146], and charging must start at different hours of the night in the same neighbourhood [144]. System Operators of the network would need to access some information on the penetration of BEV in different areas in order to plan the reinforcement of the network [147]. Three solutions exist for a lower impact on the grid. The first one, which is the easiest to implement and is used on the Nissan Leaf, is to install a timer on board, set by the user [148]. However the user must be aware of different tariffs, and might not plan the charge at a convenient time for the network. The second solution relies on automatic monitoring in real time of electricity prices, the user fixing the threshold where the charge begins. It is a more futuristic solution, as both the technology and the electricity market must evolve in order to implement it [147]. The last solution is the Vehicle to Grid (V2G) technology [46,149]. It is the least ready option for commercial adoption. It requires bidirectional power flow management, smart meters, control and communication devices, and meters. The parked vehicle plays an active role in the grid management and is able to send power to the network during peak demand and charge its battery when supply is too high. It acts as an emergency power supply as well as a storage device, which could for instance offset the intermittency of renewables. Its role is

4.4. Performance and pricing of current BEVs fleet In the last couple of years many models of electric cars have been released with many more being planned for release. This can be seen as proof that manufacturers believe in the potential of BEVs. In Table 3, some models of BEVs are compared in a table, based on carmakers’ publications. The Mitsubishi i-MiEV, BMW i3, Nissan Leaf, Telsla Model S, Chevrolet Volt, Honda Fit and etc. have been commercialised in recent years. With the exception of the Tesla Roadster, which targets premium customers, these cars have a range of approximately 150 km. The battery technology used is Lithium-ion. Most of the carmakers propose, or will propose soon, their own model of BEV. Prices of battery electric city cars start at £23,990 including the £5000 government plug-in car grant, but they are also available with other less traditional schemes [92,112,130,131,152,153]. 4.5. Cost of ownership of BEVs 4.5.1. Capital cost and running cost As it can be seen Fig. 9 [3], even if battery costs are expected to decrease dramatically with the optimization of manufacturing processes (scale and learning effect) and by the use of lower cost materials [154], it still represents an important share of the total cost of the vehicle. The capital cost of BEVs is higher than ICEVs, reducing greatly its attractiveness to consumers [155]. 422



This is why innovative business models have been implemented, either to reduce it, or to propose an entirely new relationship to cars.

However the running cost of BEVs is lower: it has been evaluated as being equal to one seventh of the running cost of a comparable ICEV [2]. These savings are less visible at the purchase of the vehicle, but they can compensate the higher capital cost after a few years which makes a total cost of ownership approach to comparison essential [156,157].

4.6.1. Better place Launched in 2008, the company proposed the delivery of the network and services necessary for the development of electric vehicles, and therefore to remove one of the main barriers to the development of BEVs, at a local or national scale [127]. However, as of 2013, Better Place closed down its operations but the business model it was based on was interesting nonetheless. The range of services and infrastructures offered was broad [161,162]. First of all, the company offered to provide and install a network of charging spots and battery switch stations. Secondly, it offered BEV drivers’ services such as embedded energy monitoring, support, and a route planning system, which takes into account the vehicle range and available charging spots. Finally, it had designed a network software, which could monitor the batteries and their needs, in order to anticipate energy demand, communicate in real time with the grid operators, and allow them to implement intelligent charging in order to avoid peak periods and offset the intermittency of renewable energy sources [163,164].

4.5.2. Cost of ownership The total cost of ownership takes into account the capital cost, running cost, and sometimes end of life cost. It is the most comprehensive tool for any cost comparison between vehicles. In the literature, several studies can be found which evaluate it over a long timescale for different types of vehicles and the total cost of ownership of BEVs, FCEVs, FCHEVs and ICEVs and their sensitivity to fuel prices is compared in [40,89,104,140,158]. It concluded that BEVs and FCHEVs could have the lowest life cycle cost by 2030. However, this depends greatly on the size of the battery: it should be kept to a minimum to be attractive. A report by [3] concluded that the total cost of ownership of ICEVs, BEVs, PHEVs and FCEVs will converge after 2025. By 2030, BEVs are estimated to be cost competitive for small and medium vehicles. Another report [159] studied the running cost of ICEVs and BEVs including the battery amortized over 10 years, and concluded that the crossover date could be between 2020 and 2026, depending on the relative prices of batteries, electricity and fossil fuels. The results of these studies are consistent and conclude that BEVs are not currently economically attractive but could be by 2030. However it depends greatly on fuel and battery prices, the price evolution of which cannot be foreseen for such a timescale. It must be noted that the cost of ownership of BEVs increases significantly when the battery has to be changed during the lifetime of the vehicle [2]. Current average life of a vehicle in the UK was 14 years whereas battery life is expected to reach 10 years (but is probably lower at the moment). As vehicles lose value each year, battery replacement would probably exceed the value of the car, leading to premature end of life. This has not been taken into account in the previously cited studies. One interesting metric with which to compare the cost of ownership of BEVs with ICEs is the breakeven price of petrol [29]. It is the retail price that petrol must attain to equal the cost of ownership of the two vehicles. In [30] it has been estimated between $2 and $3/gallon for a 160 km range vehicle which appears very low. Oil prices are volatile and susceptible to strong rises in the next decades because of resource scarcity and possible geopolitical issues. BEVs could become economically attractive after such an increase in petrol prices. The financing scheme of the infrastructure needed to develop BEVs and PHEVs is not clear yet; however the total investment needed for Europe in the next 40 years has been estimated to 540 billion euros to meet the demand of 200 million vehicles by 2050 [3].

4.6.2. Car clubs Car clubs propose pay-as-you-go cars, mainly for urban drivers, on the same scheme as Barclay’s bicycle hire scheme in London. Cars are parked in specific spots, and each client can borrow one for as long as needed and pay for the time he uses it. These schemes are interesting for urban clients: it allows them to avoid the insurance and maintenance of a car, they only use infrequently. Some of the car clubs propose electric vehicles only as they focus on urban users. In La Rochelle, France, Yélomobile has proposed BEVs since 1999 [165], for €7/h (or less with a monthly subscription). Other car clubs, such as Autolib’ in France, plan to switch at least partially to electric vehicles [166]. Car clubs could be a promising niche market for BEVs. As they develop at a city scale, local policies have an important weight. Their clients are urban users who could benefit greatly from the advantages of BEVs. Moreover it allows users to rent a car with an appropriate range for each of their trips, and eventually exchange for another car with a full battery during their trip. 4.6.3. Monthly payment: Citroën C-Zero and Pininfarina Bluecar Some car manufacturers have decided to rent their cars to their customers instead of selling them. It is the case for Pininfarina, with the Bluecar [112], and Citroën, with the C-Zero. The C-Zero offer in the UK has been disclosed [152] and consists of a four-year, 40,000 mile contract, which will be available with a monthly payment of £415 excluding VAT. Included is the lease of the car and the battery pack; an 8 year (or 80,000 mile) warranty on the vehicle, the battery pack and the power train; and the servicing and maintenance for four years and 40,000 miles. The eventual problems with the battery that concern consumers are covered by the warranty. More importantly, it could seem more attractive for them as the savings on running costs (fuel, parking fees and congestion charges) are more noticeable on a monthly basis, and can compensate more visibly for the higher cost of the vehicle [167].

4.5.3. Cost of absence of externalities BEVs have advantages over ICEVs in that they do not rely on foreign and depleting fossil fuel supplies and produce no tailpipe emissions of NOx, SOx and particulates. These advantages are valuable as it means BEVs can help alleviate environmental greenhouse gas impact as well as to improve both public health and energy security. Environmental and political benefits could be priced in order to integrate their value in the market [40]. It is the role of policies to put an economic value on externalities. We will see how governments can act in the last part of this report: they can play an important role in the economic attractiveness of BEVs compared to ICEVs [160].

4.6.4. Segmentation of the market McKinsey study suggested that manufacturers should not try to design electric vehicles which satisfy a majority of customers [168]. Instead, they should tailor BEV to the needs of precise categories of customers. For instance, for urban drivers, and for the second car of a household, the range needed is most of the time lower than what is proposed by the manufacturers. Given the high price of the batteries, it would be more economic for them to buy a car with lower performances. This is why this study suggests that market “segmentation by driving mission” is crucial for carmakers. Those innovative business models tackle the issue of high capital

4.6. Innovative business models Currently one of the main barriers to the adoption of electric vehicles is the high initial cost of the vehicle due to the battery cost. 423



BEVs received better scores than LPG, hybrid and petrol vehicle in greenhouse gas emissions, air acidification and human health. Moreover the potential of BEV is higher as the introduction of renewables into the country mix would greatly improve the results. However, diesel vehicles have not been studied in this paper. This conclusion differs from the other results, which may be due to different boundaries or a lower carbon density of the Belgium energy mix considered. The research conclusions that have been described differ in their results. The environmental impact of BEVs is still controversial; however, it becomes clear that in many countries there is a need to improve the carbon intensity of electricity generation for BEVs to obtain lower impact figures compared to new diesel ICEVs. In addition, it is necessary to compare BEVs to new and future ICEVs. It is a common mistake to compare new BEVs to the average ICEV, as cars manufacturers have improved their efficiency and environmental impact. The correct evaluation has to be between two new cars for the future of transportation. Because of the diversity in their energy mix, BEV environmental benefits are unequal between European countries. However, there is a consensus on the fact that BEVs do improve the air quality in urban areas, because of the absence of tailpipes emissions such as NOx, SOx and particulates [2]. Secondly, the carbon intensity of the grid is usually lower at night [2]. The less reactive power plants, which operate at night to provide the base load, are also generally less carbon intensive (for instance, nuclear power plants). Most of the BEVs would be charged overnight. The LCAs, which are based on average carbon intensity of electricity, slightly overestimate, therefore, the climate change impact of BEVs.

cost, development of the infrastructure, battery warranty, and range anxiety and have the potential to, therefore, contribute greatly to the development of BEVs. However, policies will need to be brought forward to develop the infrastructure, decrease capital and running costs and increase the public awareness of BEVs in order to achieve market penetration. After this initial political effort, scale and learning effects alongside a suitable infrastructure and high visibility, should ensure an autonomous development [169]. 5. The crucial role of policies for the adoption of BEV 5.1. BEV for clean transportation BEVs, as well as Fuel Cell Vehicles (FCVs), are often mentioned as “Zero emission vehicles” in the press and on manufacturers’ presentations. For instance on promotional pictures of the Nissan Leaf, and on one of the car websites. The car is clearly presented as a zero emission vehicle, without any further explanation or restriction of the term. BMW UK launched an advertisement campaign for one of its electric vehicles with the words "zero CO2 when driving". The Advertisement Standard Authority, judging this expression misleading, forbade future statements in the UK on BEVs advertisement implying that their use does not produce any emissions [170]. This logo does not appear on the Nissan UK website [131]. The above cases illustrate the public misperception of the real environmental impact of BEVs. International and governmental greenhouse gas emission reduction roadmaps rely on BEVs, among other technologies, to reduce the emissions due to transportation. BEV impact is seen as a fact that can help to meet the CO2 reduction targets, because of the absence of tailpipe emissions. However, battery manufacturing and disposal, and the carbon intensity of electricity generation, must be taken into account in order to realise that BEVs are far from being zero-emission vehicles. The environmental impact of BEVs from “cradle to grave” has been assessed in reports, but the conclusions differ slightly. The UK Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and the Department for Transport [171] presented a comparison of a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of BEVs and ICEVs. To take into account future reduction in emissions due to electricity generation and technological improvements of the vehicles, different results are calculated for 2010, 2020 and 2030. Ten criteria were used for the assessment. In 2010, BEVs scored better than ICEVs in climate change impact, non-renewable resource depletion and noise. They scored better than petrol- but worse than diesel engine equipped ICEVs in aquatic eco-toxicity and photochemical oxidant formation, and better than diesel but worse than petrol for eutrophication [172]. BEVs impact is worse on air acidification, water use, waste generation and human health. Their possibility of improvement for 2030 is very high, but the overall results for 2010 show that the decarbonisation of the grid is crucial to improve the environmental impact of BEVs so that it becomes a low-carbon technology [173]. The share of the total BEV impact due to the extraction of resources for the battery is stated for each criterion and it is very high, ranging between 12% and 87%. According to another study [174], 50% of BEV life cycle emissions stem from the lithium-ion battery. Compared to ICEVs, the emissions shifted from operation to fuel generation, with an overall reduction of 58% in emissions per km. These results differ highly from those presented in [175]. It is concluded that the operational phase dominates the production of emissions by BEVs. The environmental impact caused by the battery, measured with Eco-indicator 99, a LCA methodology based on Human Health, Ecosystems, and Resources criterion, is evaluated at 15% of the total. The impact of the extraction of lithium for the battery is under 2.3%, the majority of battery emissions originating from the supply of copper and aluminium. In Belgium, greenhouse gas emissions of BEVs, on a life cycle basis, were estimated 78.27% lower than petrol vehicle emissions [176].

5.2. The role of BEVs to meet greenhouse gas emission targets Even if the emissions of BEVs are currently only slightly lower than those of diesel ICEVs (depending on the country), it is usually seen as one of the solutions to make it possible for Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission reduction targets by 2050 to be achieved. 5.2.1. The role of BEV in IEA’s technology roadmap In Energy Technology Perspectives 2008, the IEA created a scenario, called the BLUE Map scenario, where annual CO2 emissions are halved from 2005 to 2050. Reports have been published to describe the contribution of different sectors needed to reach this target, as well as the role of the different stakeholders, and how they should interact. One of them [35] described the role of BEVs and PHEVs in LDV transportation. They have to account for a 30% reduction in CO2 emissions of this sector by 2050. The targets set by the roadmap are ambitious: at least 5 million of BEVs and PHEVs combined sold per year by 2020, and 50% of the sales worldwide by 2050. Fig. 10 shows the distribution of annual LDV sales by technology up to 2050. BEVs sales increase from 2030 and in 2050 they are the second most sold type of vehicle after Hydrogen vehicles [177].

Fig. 10. Annual light-duty vehicle sales by technology type on the BLUE Map scenario.

424



5.3.1. Emission regulations The Euro standard, an EU legislation, imposes strict limits on pollutants emissions of LDV, such as carbon monoxides, particulates, nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbon. Different levels have been defined: Euro 6 standards are currently in application. These regulations concern diesel, petrol and natural gas vehicles. Higher standards could probably reduce the difference in initial cost between ICE and BEV.

Table 4 Domestic transport electrification levels on the DECC 2050 Pathways Analysis (in percentage of car travels in 2050) [142].

Conventional Car Hybrid Electric BEV FCEV

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

78% 20% 3% –

35% 54% 10% 1%

20% 32% 28% 20%

– – 80% 20%

5.3.2. Information and education The emissions of vehicles are given by manufacturers and displayed in the saleroom. However this is insufficient given the high initial cost of BEVs. The life cycle cost must be clearly explained to customers so that they can be less dependent on the initial cost of the vehicle in their choice of vehicles. Labelling and clear marketing must support the measures which reduce the cost of the vehicle [181,185]. Last of all, the lack of confidence of consumers, on safety and range issues for instance, must be tackled. It can be done through high-visibility trials, such as taxi fleets, accurate information on the performance of BEVs, and an introduction in government fleets [35,186].

In order to meet the targets of the scenario, and stabilise GHG concentration in the atmosphere, the market share of BEVs must be increased very quickly to replace both Gasoline and Diesel ICEVs. This scenario illustrates the fact that the IEA believes in the potential of BEVs to be accepted by consumers and reduce significantly the emissions of road transport [178]. 5.2.2. The role of BEVs in DECC 2050 pathways analysis The UK has committed to an 80% reduction of its greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, relative to 1990 levels. The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has developed a calculator which allows the selection of the intensity of the country’s efforts across different fields and technologies, on a scale from 1 to 4 [179]. For each proposition, it displays information, including the consequences on UK GHG emissions up to 2050 and the percentage of imported primary energy. One of the parameters is “Domestic transport electrification” and is evaluated with the percentage of kilometres driven with different technologies, in 2050. Table 4 describes the assumptions made for each level of effort in this field. It illustrates the important role of BEVs in DECC’s analysis. The 2050 Web Tool provides example pathways presented by scientists and institutions such as National Grid, Friends of the Earth, Campaign for Protection of Rural England, and Energy Technology Institute. Even if those pathways have very different origins, they all are favourable to domestic transport electrification, as four of the six examples advise a Level 4 effort and two a Level 3 in that field. When faced with having to make a trade-off between different solutions to improve energy security and GHG emissions reduction, electrification of domestic transport is an effort that a majority are willing to make. It is much less controversial than wind turbines or nuclear energy, for instance. However, this remains a theoretical acceptance, different from a consumer’s acceptance, because it is made from the point of view of policymakers facing a choice to meet a target [180]. Nevertheless, the political acceptance allows the implementation of policies to facilitate the adoption of BEVs.

5.3.3. Reduction of the capital cost of the vehicles As customers often fail to evaluate the cost of ownership of a vehicle over a lifetime, it is seen as necessary to provide incentives at the sale [187]. It can be done with car grants and fees or rebates systems based on emissions, at time of vehicle purchase. In the UK, the Plug-In Car Grant has been implemented since January 2011. This technology neutral approach targets ultra-low (tailpipe) emissions cars, including BEVs. The grant received by the buyer of a qualifying vehicle is of 25% of the cost of the vehicle, up to a maximum of £5000 [188]. In 2008, this kind of measure was implemented in France, Spain, Belgium and Sweden, and electric vehicles were exempted from registration tax in Greece, the Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland and Norway [189]. 5.3.4. Lower running cost 5.3.4.1. Road tax reduction. In some European countries, vehicle owners must pay an annual tax in order to use their vehicle. The amount depends on the CO2 emissions of the vehicle. By lowering this tax for BEVs, it is possible to increase the attractiveness of those vehicles. In 2008 electric vehicles were exempted from road tax in Norway, Denmark and Greece [2].

5.3.4.2. Fuel taxation. An increase of the taxation on diesel and petrol would have a positive impact on BEVs by comparison. Another alternative to fuel taxation is a tax per driven kilometre, depending on the car emissions, or per gram of CO2 emitted (which is equivalent).

5.3. Policy options to develop BEVs In order to reduce CO2 emissions from LDV, policies have been implemented in Europe to promote low carbon vehicles. It can be seen as a way to give a value to the absence of tailpipe emissions. In a 2009 report evaluating the effective policies for cleaner passenger vehicles and based on a literature study [181], it has been concluded that in order for policies to be efficient and take into account any potential side effect of a single measure, they must be designed as a whole set and not individually. Emissions regulation, purchase and fuel taxes, associated with education, information and rules on marketing and labelling, can help the shift to an efficient car fleet. It states that policies can influence behaviours. It must be noticed that this report did not consider the policies associated with electric vehicles in particular; however most of the measures are common [182,183]. The main measures which could help the development of BEVs, are described below and can be grouped in five categories: emissions regulations, information and education, reduction of capital and running cost, and development of the infrastructure [184].

5.3.4.3. Local policies: urban access restrictions and parking reduction. In order to reduce the congestion or to improve air quality, many European cities have implemented Urban Access Restrictions schemes. These can result in a total ban of some categories of vehicles in city centres or road pricing and permits. BEVs are exempted most of the time from these limited traffic zones and can circulate without a permit. It is the case in Bologna, Hannover, Verona, Munich, Stuttgart, Oslo, Poitiers, Krakow, Modena and London, for instance [190]. In Rome and Florence, BEVs receive a 50% discount compared to Euro 5 vehicles. It is all the more important than BEVs are targeting mainly urban users: this tax exemption can represent for some consumers important savings. Parking fee reductions or exemptions is a measure implemented locally, in some districts. Depending on the habits of the drivers, it can also represent an important advantage for some users. Such measures 425



6. Conclusions

have been implemented in Norway, Denmark, Italy, Greece, and in the UK [2191]. Preferential parking spots, with charge points, could also be implemented [34].

Climate and energy security concerns make the infusion of electric propulsion inevitable for the road transport sector. Among the possible technologies for LDVs, BEVs have a high potential, illustrated by their important role in the IEA roadmap; despite the fact that there are certain challenges, which have to be overcome. It is clear that the future landscape of the road transportation mix will be composed of various propulsion technologies, each one being a compromise between emissions and range. BEVs will probably be the most suitable for urban, small to medium sized vehicles, while hybrid vehicles, and fuel-cell vehicles appear to be more applicable for the longer-ranged and larger vehicles. Carmakers have started to commercialize BEVs since a number of years and manufacturers are proposing charging spot infrastructures. However, challenges must be overcome for them to obtain important market penetration from the current very low uptake. The social acceptance of BEVs must be earned. Technology, and particularly that of the battery, must improve to meet the cost and range expectations of consumers. Infrastructures must be developed, and they require important standardization efforts. Education and information are also crucial so that consumers can base their choices on sound perceptions of the total cost of ownership and performance of electric vehicles. Extensive efforts have already been expended to overcome the difficulty of increasing the techno-socio-economical readiness levels of BEVs. Research for BEVs and PHEVs is very active. For instance, new battery materials and designs are being developed. Range extenders can overcome the ‘range anxiety’ issue. Numerous partnerships have been formed between industries, governments, and research facilities to coordinate efforts and extend work on standardization. New business models are being developed, adapted to the new constraints of BEV commercialisation. To put a value on environmental benefit and independence from oil, governments implement incentives to compensate for the higher cost of ownership of BEVs. Their increased market penetration will progressively decrease their cost due to economies of scale and increased process learning curves coming into effect. By 2030, most of the reports estimate that on a life cycle basis, BEVs will have become competitive to ICEVs. However, due to uncertainties of battery, electricity, gasoline and hydrogen costs, and the pricing scheme of externalities, it is impossible to precisely determine this date. Adding to the unpredictability of social acceptance and despite numerous reports on the subject, the rate of development of BEVs cannot be accurately determined and therefore forecast models carry a fairly substantial uncertainty margin. Environmental impact forecasts are equally unpredictable and susceptible to uncertainties particularly, also, due to the impact of externalities and the effects of the prevailing regional socio-political landscapes. The literature in the field of BEVs is very rich on this field, and are continuous and rapidly changing. Few years ago BEVs were generally considered as a niche market with an unclear future, but this opinion has changed. Currently the potential of the technology is recognised and efforts are made for faster market penetration. However the future of the technology in terms of uptake and in the long term vehicle power mix, is still uncertain as the cost of the battery will probably remain prohibitively high in the next 20 years considering, also, the competition from other low carbon technologies with smaller battery capacities such as PHEV.

5.3.5. Charging infrastructure The infrastructure network in public areas represents an important investment. Moreover it is a “chicken and egg” situation, as private investors would prefer to invest in a network if the demand exists and the consumers would consider buying BEV once the network has been built. This is why it can be necessary to create incentives for the creation of infrastructure in public areas, or even to provide the charging spots directly [192]. This measure is one of those advised by the IEA [34].

5.4. An integrated approach: public private partnerships for the development of BEVs It is important that the high number of stakeholders involved in BEV development to integrate their approach and work coherently on solutions to the complex issues that currently slow down the development of BEV. One such approach is developed by the Green eMotion project, a Public Private Partnership supported by the European Union. Launched in 2011, its aim is to promote electromobility by an accumulation of experience in European test regions, carrying an improvement in the technology [193]. This 4 year project has a planned budget of 42 million euros, including 24 million euros from the EU [193]. It involves 42 partners from different European countries but also various sectors: industries such as Alstom, Better Place, Bosch, IBM, SAP or Siemens, utilities such as EDF, Endesa or Enel, the EV manufacturers BMW, Daimler, Micro-Vett, Nissan and Renault and European municipalities (Roma, Copenhagen, Barcelona and Berlin among others), ten research institutions and universities across Europe and EV Technology Institutions (Danish Technological Institute, FKA, TUV Nord) [194]. This project has two goals, and each one cannot be completed without this partnership across borders and sectors. The first one is standardization, which is considered as “the key factor for a fast and cost efficient European rollout of electricity” [195], as well as the development of common European processes, standards and IT solutions. The second one is to broaden the scale of EV trials from local experiments to European networks. Charging networks within the demonstration regions is planned to increase to 14,000 spots, mainly in Berlin, Barcelona, Madrid and Malaga. This is expected to offer the field experience needed for an improvement of the technology. This European co-ordination of stakeholders is necessary to overcome some of the barriers toward the development of BEV: the standardization of the infrastructure, for example, is necessary to reduce its cost, and large scale trials will allow the identification of consumers’ needs and difficulties. It could foster partnerships between industries and generate economies of scale. The contacts between industries and research institutions will also bring funding to the institutions as well as promising technologies to the industries and it would help co-ordinate research efforts in EV. Collaboration on a global scale is more difficult but potentially more rewarding. The IEA proposed to play a role in the co-ordination of the efforts in its roadmap [186], mainly in planning, organisation of workshops, data collection, research methodology and analysis , but also by running joint research programs. The aims of this initiative are directed towards collaboration and information sharing, global systems such as recycling systems, standardization of the infrastructure, reporting on best practices to avoid the repetition of mistakes, and identification and assistance to the countries identified as first adopters.

References [1] Liu L, Kong F, Liu X, Peng Y, Wang Q. A review on electric vehicles interacting with renewable energy in smart grid. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;51:648–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.06.036. [2] Investigation into the scope for the transport sector to swtich to electric vehicles and plug -in hybrid vehicles; 2008. [3] A portfolio of power-trains for Europe: a fact-based analysis; 2010. [4] Poullikkas A. Sustainable options for electric vehicle technologies. Renew Sustain

426



Proc IEEE 2007;95:806–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2007.892490. [31] Fotouhi A, Auger DJ, Propp K, Longo S, Wild M. A review on electric vehicle battery modelling: from lithium-ion toward lithium–sulphur. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;56:1008–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.009. [32] Manzetti S, Mariasiu F. Electric vehicle battery technologies: from present state to future systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;51:1004–12. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.010. [33] Guibert Ade. Batteries and supercapacitors cells for the fully electric vehicle; 2009. [34] IEA. EV/PHEV roadmap targets; 2009. [35] IEA. Technology Roadmap Electric and plug-in electric vehicles; 2013 http://dx. doi.org/10.1007/SpringerReference_7300; . [36] Hensley R, Knupfer S, Pinner D. Electrifying cars: How three industries will evolve. McKinsey Co; 2009 〈http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/manufacturing/ electrifying_cars_how_three_industries_will_evolve〉 [Accessed 27 February 2015]. [37] Bhatti AR, Salam Z, Aziz MJBA, Yee KP, Ashique RH. Electric vehicles charging using photovoltaic: status and technological review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;54:34–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.091. [38] Rahman I, Vasant PM, Singh BSM, Abdullah-Al-Wadud M, Adnan N. Review of recent trends in optimization techniques for plug-in hybrid, and electric vehicle charging infrastructures. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;58:1039–47. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.353. [39] Miller JM. Energy storage system technology challenges facing strong hybrid, plug-in and battery electric vehicles. Veh Power Propuls Conference 2009. VPPC ’09. IEEE; 2009. p. 4–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/VPPC.2009.5289879. [40] Offer GJ, Howey D, Contestabile M, Clague R, Brandon NP. Comparative analysis of battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid vehicles in a future sustainable road transport system. Energy Policy 2010;38:24–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.enpol.2009.08.040. [41] Miller JM, Bohn T, Dougherty TJ, Deshpande U. Why hybridization of energy storage is essential for future hybrid, plug-in and battery electric vehicles. 2009 IEEE Energy Convers. Congr. Expo. ECCE 2009; 2009. p. 2614–20. http://dx.doi. org/10.1109/ECCE.2009.5316096. [42] Li Y, Yang J, Song J. Microscale characterization of coupled degradation mechanism of graded materials in lithium batteries of electric vehicles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;50:1445–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.rser.2015.05.080. [43] Deberitz J. Lithium: production and application of a fascinating and versatile element, 2nd ed. Verlag Moderne Industrie; 2006. [44] Scrosati B, Garche J. Lithium batteries: status, prospects and future. J Power Sources 2010;195:2419–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2009.11.048. [45] Schuster SF, Brand MJ, Berg P, Gleissenberger M, Jossen A. Lithium-ion cell-tocell variation during battery electric vehicle operation. J Power Sources 2015;297:242–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2015.08.001. [46] Nemry F, Leduc G, Muñoz A. Plug-in hybrid and battery-electric vehicles: state of the research and development and comparative analysis of energy and cost efficiency; 2009. [47] Groenewald J, Grandjean T, Marco J. Accelerated energy capacity measurement of lithium-ion cells to support future circular economy strategies for electric vehicles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;69:98–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.rser.2016.11.017. [48] Riba J-R, López-Torres C, Romeral L, Garcia A. Rare-earth-free propulsion motors for electric vehicles: a technology review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;57:367–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.121. [49] Faria R, Marques P, Moura P, Freire F, Delgado J, De Almeida AT. Impact of the electricity mix and use profile in the life-cycle assessment of electric vehicles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;24:271–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.rser.2013.03.063. [50] Capasso C, Veneri O. Experimental analysis on the performance of lithium based batteries for road full electric and hybrid vehicles. Appl Energy 2014;136:1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.04.013. [51] Tahil W. The Trouble with Lithium 2 under the microscope; 2008. [52] Tahil W. The Trouble with Lithium; 2006. [53] Grosjean C, Herrera Miranda P, Perrin M, Poggi P. Assessment of world lithium resources and consequences of their geographic distribution on the expected development of the electric vehicle industry. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:1735–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.11.023. [54] Amiribavandpour P, Shen W, Mu D, Kapoor A. An improved theoretical electrochemical-thermal modelling of lithium-ion battery packs in electric vehicles. J Power Sources 2015;284:328–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2015.03.022. [55] Li Y, Yang J, Song J. Electromagnetic effects model and design of energy systems for lithium batteries with gradient structure in sustainable energy electric vehicles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;52:842–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.rser.2015.07.155. [56] Liu G, Ouyang M, Lu L, Li J, Hua J. A highly accurate predictive-adaptive method for lithium-ion battery remaining discharge energy prediction in electric vehicle applications. Appl Energy 2015;149:297–314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.03.110. [57] Dixon JW, Nakashima I aN, Arcos F, Ortúzar M. Test results in an electric vehicle using a combination of ultracapacitors and zebra battery. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 2006;18650:565–72. [58] Chacko S, Chung YM. Thermal modelling of Li-ion polymer battery for electric vehicle drive cycles. J Power Sources 2012;213:296–303. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.04.015. [59] Devie A, Vinot E, Pelissier S, Venet P. Real-world battery duty profile of a

Energy Rev 2015;41:1277–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.09.016. [5] Wager G, Whale J, Braunl T. Driving electric vehicles at highway speeds: the effect of higher driving speeds on energy consumption and driving range for electric vehicles in Australia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;63:158–65. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.060. [6] Shafie-khah M, Neyestani N, Damavandi MY, Gil FAS, Catalão JPS. Economic and technical aspects of plug-in electric vehicles in electricity markets. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;53:1168–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.079. [7] Al-Alawi BM, Bradley TH. Review of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and electric vehicle market modeling studies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;21:190–203. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.12.048. [8] Hannan M a, Azidin FA, Mohamed A. Hybrid electric vehicles and their challenges: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;29:135–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.rser.2013.08.097. [9] Arora S, Shen W, Kapoor A. Review of mechanical design and strategic placement technique of a robust battery pack for electric vehicles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;60:1319–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.03.013. [10] Hannan MA, Hoque MM, Mohamed A, Ayob A. Review of energy storage systems for electric vehicle applications: issues and challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;69:771–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.171. [11] Aghaei J, Nezhad AE, Rabiee A, Rahimi E. Contribution of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in power system uncertainty management. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;59:450–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.207. [12] Dallinger D, Wietschel M. Grid integration of intermittent renewable energy sources using price-responsive plug-in electric vehicles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:3370–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.02.019. [13] Raslavičius L, Keršys A, Makaras R. Management of hybrid powertrain dynamics and energy consumption for 2WD, 4WD, and {HMMWV} vehicles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;68(Part 1):380–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.rser.2016.09.109. [14] Li Y, Yang J, Song J. Nano energy system model and nanoscale effect of graphene battery in renewable energy electric vehicle. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;69:652–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.118. [15] Yang SC, Li M, Tang TQ, Lin Y. An electric vehicle’s battery life model under carfollowing model. Meas J Int Meas Confed 2013;46:4226–31. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.measurement.2013.07.035. [16] Hu J, Morais H, Sousa T, Lind M. Electric vehicle fleet management in smart grids: a review of services, optimization and control aspects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;56:1207–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.014. [17] Li Y, Yang J, Song J. Design structure model and renewable energy technology for rechargeable battery towards greener and more sustainable electric vehicle. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;74:19–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.rser.2017.02.021. [18] Sabri MFM, Danapalasingam KA, Rahmat MF. A review on hybrid electric vehicles architecture and energy management strategies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;53:1433–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.036. [19] Tie SF, Tan CW. A review of energy sources and energy management system in electric vehicles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;20:82–102. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.077. [20] Peng M, Liu L, Jiang C. A review on the economic dispatch and risk management of the large-scale plug-in electric vehicles (PHEVs)-penetrated power systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:1508–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.rser.2011.12.009. [21] Amjad S, Neelakrishnan S, Rudramoorthy R. Review of design considerations and technological challenges for successful development and deployment of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:1104–10. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.11.001. [22] Shareef H, Islam MM, Mohamed A. A review of the stage-of-the-art charging technologies, placement methodologies, and impacts of electric vehicles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;64:403–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.rser.2016.06.033. [23] Castro TS, de Souza TM, Silveira JL. Feasibility of electric vehicle: electricity by grid×photovoltaic energy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;69:1077–84. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.099. [24] Hota AR, Juvvanapudi M, Bajpai P. Issues and solution approaches in PHEV integration to the smart grid. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;30:217–29. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.10.008. [25] Yilmaz M. Limitations/capabilities of electric machine technologies and modeling approaches for electric motor design and analysis in plug-in electric vehicle applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;52:80–99. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.033. [26] Ashique RH, Salam Z, Aziz MJBA, Bhatti AR. Integrated photovoltaic-grid dc fast charging system for electric vehicle: a review of the architecture and control. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;69:1243–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.rser.2016.11.245. [27] Kumar MS, Revankar ST. Development scheme and key technology of an electric vehicle: an overview. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;70:1266–85. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.027. [28] Weiss M, Patel MK, Junginger M, Perujo A, Bonnel P, van Grootveld G. On the electrification of road transport – learning rates and price forecasts for hybridelectric and battery-electric vehicles. Energy Policy 2012;48:374–93. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.038. [29] Burke A, Jungers B, Yang C, Ogden J. Battery electric vehicles: an assessment of the technology and factors influencing market readiness. Public Interes Energy Res Progr Calif Energy Comm 2007:1–24. [30] Burke AF. Batteries and ultracapacitors for electric, hybrid, and fuel cell vehicles.

427



[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[68]

[69]

[70]

[71]

[72]

[73]

[74]

[75]

[76]

[77]

[78]

[79]

[80]

[81]

[82]

[83]

2012;79:1654–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.06.002. [84] Tolj I, Lototskyy MV, Davids MW, Pasupathi S, Swart G, Pollet BG. Fuel cellbattery hybrid powered light electric vehicle (golf cart): influence of fuel cell on the driving performance. Int J Hydrog Energy 2013;38:10630–9. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.06.072. [85] Han X, Ouyang M, Lu L, Li J. A comparative study of commercial lithium ion battery cycle life in electric vehicle: capacity loss estimation. J Power Sources 2014;268:658–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.06.111. [86] Danilov D, Notten PHL. Adaptive Battery Management Systems for the new generation of Electrical Vehicles. Veh. Power Propuls. Conference 2009. VPPC’09. IEEE; 2009. p. 317–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/VPPC.2009.5289835. [87] Škugor B, Deur J. Dynamic programming-based optimisation of charging an electric vehicle fleet system represented by an aggregate battery model. Energy 2015:1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.057. [88] Cordoba-arenas A, Onori S, Rizzoni G. A control-oriented lithium-ion battery pack model for PHEV life-cycle studies and system design with consideration of health management. J Power Sources 2014;1:791–808. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jpowsour.2014.12.048. [89] Lebeau K, Van Mierlo J, Lebeau P, Mairesse O, Macharis C. The market potential for plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles in Flanders: a choice-based conjoint analysis. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 2012;17:592–7. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2012.07.004. [90] Chau KT, Chan CC, Liu C. Overview of permanent-magnet brushless drives for electric and hybrid electric vehicles. Ind Electron IEEE Trans 2008;55:2246–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2008.918403. [91] Guzzella L, Sciarretta A. Electric and hybrid-electric propulsion systems. Veh Propuls Syst Introd to Model Optim, Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2013. p. 67–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35913-2. [92] i-MiEV Electric Green City Car-Mitsubishi Motors UK. Mitsubishi Mot UK; 2011. http://dx.doi.org/http://www.mitsubishi-cars.co.uk/imiev/. [93] Emadi A, Member S, Lee YJ, Member S, Rajashekara K. Power electronics and motor drives in electric, hybrid electric, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. IEEE Trans Ind Electron 2008;55:2237–45. [94] Seaman A, Dao TS, McPhee J. A survey of mathematics-based equivalent-circuit and electrochemical battery models for hybrid and electric vehicle simulation. J Power Sources 2014;256:410–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.01.057, [Review]. [95] Mokrani Z, Rekioua D, Rekioua T. Modeling, control and power management of hybrid photovoltaic fuel cells with battery bank supplying electric vehicle. Int J Hydrog Energy 2014;39:15178–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.03.215. [96] Howey D, North R, Martinez-botas R. Road transport technology and climate change mitigation. Grantham Inst Clim Chang Brief Pap No 2; 2010. [97] Pollet BG, Staffell I, Shang JL. Current status of hybrid, battery and fuel cell electric vehicles: from electrochemistry to market prospects. Electrochim Acta 2012;84:235–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2012.03.172. [98] Ketsingsoi S, Kumsuwan Y. An off-line battery charger based on buck-boost power factor correction converter for plug-in electric vehicles. Energy Procedia 2014;56:659–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.07.205. [99] Baumeister J, Weise J, Hirtz E, Höhne K, Hohe J. Applications of aluminum hybrid foam sandwiches in battery housings for electric vehicles. Procedia Mater Sci 2014;4:301–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mspro.2014.07.565. [100] Cuma MU, Koroglu T. A comprehensive review on estimation strategies used in hybrid and battery electric vehicles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;42:517–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.047. [101] Hwang J-J, Hu J-S, Lin C-H. Design of a range extension strategy for power decentralized fuel cell/battery electric vehicles. Int J Hydrog Energy 2015;40:11704–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.04.026. [102] Chevrolet Volt; 2015 〈http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car.html〉 [Accessed 1 May 2015]. [103] Li Y, Song J, Yang J. Graphene models and nano-scale characterization technologies for fuel cell vehicle electrodes. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;42:66–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.005. [104] Offer GJ, Contestabile M, Howey DA, Clague R, Brandon NP. Techno-economic and behavioural analysis of battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid vehicles in a future sustainable road transport system in the UK. Energy Policy 2011;39:1939–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.01.006. [105] Sulaiman N, Hannan MA, Mohamed A, Majlan EH, Wan Daud WR. A review on energy management system for fuel cell hybrid electric vehicle: issues and challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;52:802–14. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.132. [106] Cordner M, Matian M, Offer GJ, Hanten T, Spofforth-Jones E, Tippetts S, et al. Designing, building, testing and racing a low-cost fuel cell range extender for a motorsport application. J Power Sources 2010;195:7838–48. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.01.047. [107] Shukla a, Aricò a, Antonucci V. An appraisal of electric automobile power sources. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2001;5:137–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S13640321(00)00011-3. [108] Datasheet K2 Series Ultracapacitors. Maxwell Technol; 2015. 〈http://www. maxwell.com/docs/DATASHEET_K2_SERIES_1015370.PDF〉 [Accessed 7 January 2015]. [109] K2 Ultracapacitors series typical characteristics; 2015. [110] Song Z, Li J, Han X, Xu L, Lu L, Ouyang M, et al. Multi-objective optimization of a semi-active battery/supercapacitor energy storage system for electric vehicles. Appl Energy 2014;135:212–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.06.087.

neighbourhood electric vehicle. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 2012;25:122–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2012.05.003. Peterson SB, Michalek JJ. Cost-effectiveness of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle battery capacity and charging infrastructure investment for reducing US gasoline consumption. Energy Policy 2013;52:429–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.09.059. Barré A, Suard F, Gérard M, Montaru M, Riu D. Statistical analysis for understanding and predicting battery degradations in real-life electric vehicle use. J Power Sources 2014;245:846–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.07.052. Xiong R, Sun F, Chen Z, He H. A data-driven multi-scale extended Kalman filtering based parameter and state estimation approach of lithium-ion olymer battery in electric vehicles. Appl Energy 2014;113:463–76. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.07.061. Lu L, Han X, Li J, Hua J, Ouyang M. A review on the key issues for lithium-ion battery management in electric vehicles. J Power Sources 2013;226:272–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.10.060. Yong JY, Ramachandaramurthy VK, Tan KM, Mithulananthan N. A review on the state-of-the-art technologies of electric vehicle, its impacts and prospects. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;49:365–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.rser.2015.04.130. Catenacci M, Verdolini E, Bosetti V, Fiorese G. Going electric: expert survey on the future of battery technologies for electric vehicles. Energy Policy 2013;61:403–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.078. Speirs J, Contestabile M, Houari Y, Gross R. The future of lithium availability for electric vehicle batteries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;35:183–93. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.04.018. Girishkumar G, McCloskey B, Luntz AC, Swanson S, Wilcke W. Lithium–air battery: promise and challenges. J Phys Chem Lett 2010;1:2193–203. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1021/jz1005384. Richa K, Babbitt CW, Gaustad G, Wang X. A future perspective on lithium-ion battery waste flows from electric vehicles. Resour Conserv Recycl 2014;83:63–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.11.008. Rao Z, Wang S, Wu M, Lin Z, Li F. Experimental investigation on thermal management of electric vehicle battery with heat pipe. Energy Convers Manag 2013;65:92–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2012.08.014. Ling Z, Zhang Z, Shi G, Fang X, Wang L, Gao X, et al. Review on thermal management systems using phase change materials for electronic components, Liion batteries and photovoltaic modules. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;31:427–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.12.017. Dai H, Wei X, Sun Z A new SOH prediction concept for the power lithium-ion battery used on HEVs. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE veh power propuls conference VPPC ’09 2AD. p. 1649–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/VPPC.2009. 5289654. Pattipati B, Pattipati K, Christopherson JP, Namburu SM, Prokhorov DV, Qiao L. Automotive battery management systems. AUTOTESTCON, IEEE; 2008. p. 581– 6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/AUTEST.2008.4662684. Garcia P, Torreglosa JP, Fernandez LM, Jurado F. Control strategies for highpower electric vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cell, battery and supercapacitor. Expert Syst Appl 2013;40:4791–804. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.eswa.2013.02.028. Bauer S, Suchaneck A, Puente León F. Thermal and energy battery management optimization in electric vehicles using Pontryagin’s maximum principle. J Power Sources 2014;246:808–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.08.020. Zhang X, Mi CC, Yin C. Active-charging based powertrain control in series hybrid electric vehicles for efficiency improvement and battery lifetime extension. J Power Sources 2014;245:292–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.06.117. Guenther C, Schott B, Hennings W, Waldowski P, Danzer M a. Model-based investigation of electric vehicle battery aging by means of vehicle-to-grid scenario simulations. J Power Sources 2013;239:604–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jpowsour.2013.02.041. Bonfiglio C, Roessler W. A cost optimized battery management system with active cell balancing for lithium ion battery stacks. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE veh power propuls conference VPPC ’09; 2009. p. 304–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ VPPC.2009.5289837; Li Y, Yang J, Song J. Design principles and energy system scale analysis technologies of new lithium-ion and aluminum-ion batteries for sustainable energy electric vehicles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;71:645–51. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.094. Wang Q, Jiang B, Li B, Yan Y. A critical review of thermal management models and solutions of lithium-ion batteries for the development of pure electric vehicles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;64:106–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.rser.2016.05.033. Dai H, Guo P, Wei X, Sun Z, Wang J. ANFIS (adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system) based online SOC (State of Charge) correction considering cell divergence for the EV (electric vehicle) traction batteries. Energy 2015;80:350–60. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.11.077. Wang Y, Zhang C, Chen Z, Xie J, Zhang X. A novel active equalization method for lithium-ion batteries in electric vehicles. Appl Energy 2015;145:36–42. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.127. Adany R, Aurbach D, Kraus S. Switching algorithms for extending battery life in Electric Vehicles. J Power Sources 2013;231:50–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jpowsour.2012.12.075. Hein R, Kleindorfer PR, Spinler S. Valuation of electric vehicle batteries in vehicleto-grid and battery-to-grid systems. Technol Forecast Soc Change

428



[142] Evans RK. An abundance of Lithium: Part two; 2011. [143] Gaines L, Nelson P. Lithium-ion batteries: examining material demand and recycling issues; 2010. [144] Fairley P. Speed bumps ahead for electric-vehicle charging. IEEE Spectr 2010;47:13–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MSPEC.2010.5372476. [145] Romo R, Micheloud O. Power quality of actual grids with plug-in electric vehicles in presence of renewables and micro-grids. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;46:189–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.014. [146] Richardson DB. Electric vehicles and the electric grid: a review of modeling approaches, Impacts, and renewable energy integration. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;19:247–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.042. [147] MIT Energy Initiative Symposium. Electrification of the Transportation System. An MIT Energy Initiat Symp; 2010. [148] Website NZE. Nissan Zero Emission. NISSAN Mot; 2011 〈http://www.nissanglobal.com/EN/ZEROEMISSION/〉 [Accessed 9 February 2015]. [149] Mwasilu F, Justo JJ, Kim EK, Do TD, Jung JW. Electric vehicles and smart grid interaction: a review on vehicle to grid and renewable energy sources integration. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;34:501–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.rser.2014.03.031. [150] Grau Unda I, Papadopoulos P, Skarvelis-Kazakos S, Cipcigan LM, Jenkins N, Zabala E. Management of electric vehicle battery charging in distribution networks with multi-agent systems. Electr Power Syst Res 2014;110:172–9. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2014.01.014. [151] Marongiu A, Roscher M, Sauer DU. Influence of the vehicle-to-grid strategy on the aging behavior of lithium battery electric vehicles. Appl Energy 2014;137:899–912. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.06.063. [152] Citroën C-Zero; 2015 〈http://www.citroen.co.uk/new-cars-and-vans/citroenrange/citroen-c-zero#/new-cars/car-range/citroen-c-zero/〉 [Accessed 10 May 2015]. [153] Roadster Features and Specifications. TESLA Mot; 2014. 〈http://my.teslamotors. com/roadster/specs〉 [Accessed 5 August 2014]. [154] Martel F, Kelouwani S, Dubé Y, Agbossou K. Optimal economy-based battery degradation management dynamics for fuel-cell plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. J Power Sources 2015;274:367–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.10.011. [155] Heymans C, Walker SB, Young SB, Fowler M. Economic analysis of second use electric vehicle batteries for residential energy storage and load-levelling. Energy Policy 2014;71:22–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.016. [156] Barreras F, Maza M, Lozano A, Báscones S, Roda V, Barranco JE, et al. Design and development of a multipurpose utility AWD electric vehicle with a hybrid powertrain based on PEM fuel cells and batteries. Int J Hydrog Energy 2012;37:15367–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.06.091. [157] Jarrett A, Kim IY. Influence of operating conditions on the optimum design of electric vehicle battery cooling plates. J Power Sources 2014;245:644–55. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.06.114. [158] Juul N. Battery prices and capacity sensitivity: electric drive vehicles. Energy 2012;47:403–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.09.015. [159] Hwang JJ, Kuo JK, Wu W, Chang WR, Lin CH, Wang SE. Lifecycle performance assessment of fuel cell/battery electric vehicles. Int J Hydrog Energy 2013;38:3433–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.12.148. [160] Arslan O, Yıldız B, Ekin Karaşan O. Impacts of battery characteristics, driver preferences and road network features on travel costs of a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) for long-distance trips. Energy Policy 2014;74:168–78. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.08.015. [161] Fan L, Khodadadi JM, Pesaran aa. A parametric study on thermal management of an air-cooled lithium-ion battery module for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. J Power Sources 2013;238:301–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.03.050. [162] Park S, Jung D. Battery cell arrangement and heat transfer fluid effects on the parasitic power consumption and the cell temperature distribution in a hybrid electric vehicle. J Power Sources 2013;227:191–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jpowsour.2012.11.039. [163] Reichmuth DS, Lutz AE, Manley DK, Keller JO. Comparison of the technical potential for hydrogen, battery electric, and conventional light-duty vehicles to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and petroleum consumption in the United States. Int J Hydrog Energy 2013;38:1200–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.10.047. [164] Hooper JM, Marco J. Characterising the in-vehicle vibration inputs to the high voltage battery of an electric vehicle. J Power Sources 2014;245:510–9. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.06.150. [165] Yélomobile La voiture electrique qui se partage. Yélomobile; 2014. 〈https://www. yelomobile.fr〉. [166] Autolib’. Accueil; 2014 〈https://www.autolib.eu/en/〉 [Accessed 5 March 2014]. [167] Greaves S, Backman H, Ellison AB. An empirical assessment of the feasibility of battery electric vehicles for day-to-day driving. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 2014;66:226–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.05.011. [168] Hodson N, Newman J. A new segmentation for electric vehicles. McKinsey Q; 2009〈http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/manufacturing/a_new_segmentation_ for_electric_vehicles〉 [Accessed 9 August 2014]. [169] Neubauer J, Wood E. The impact of range anxiety and home, workplace, and public charging infrastructure on simulated battery electric vehicle lifetime utility. J Power Sources 2014;257:12–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.01.075. [170] ASA Adjudication on BMW (UK) Ltd. Advert Stand Auth; 2010. 〈http://www.asa. org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2010/7/BMW-(UK)-Ltd/TF_ADJ_48837.aspx#. VUOAQ842JUQ〉 [Accessed 1 September 2014].

[111] Pay S, Baghzouz Y. Effectiveness of battery-supercapacitor combination in electric vehicles. Power tech conference proceedings, 2003 IEEE Bol., vol. 3; 2003, p. 6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/PTC.2003.1304472. [112] Bluecar by Pininfarina ; 2014 〈http://www.pininfarina.com/en/pininfarina_ bluecar/〉 [Accessed 7 May 2015]. [113] García-Villalobos J, Zamora I, San Martín JI, Asensio FJ, Aperribay V. Plug-in electric vehicles in electric distribution networks: a review of smart charging approaches. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;38:717–31. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.040. [114] Speidel S, Bräunl T. Driving and charging patterns of electric vehicles for energy usage. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;40:97–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.rser.2014.07.177. [115] Azadfar E, Sreeram V, Harries D. The investigation of the major factors influencing plug-in electric vehicle driving patterns and charging behaviour. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;42:1065–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.rser.2014.10.058. [116] Dai H, Wei X, Sun Z, Wang D. A novel dual-inductor based charge equalizer for traction battery cells of electric vehicles. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst 2015;67:627–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2014.12.053. [117] Green RC, Wang L, Alam M. The impact of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on distribution networks: a review and outlook. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2011;15:544–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.08.015. [118] Markel T. Plug-in electric vehicle infrastructure: a foundation for electrified transportation. MIT Energy Initiat Transp Electr Symp 2010:1–10. [119] Wang YW, Lin CC. Locating multiple types of recharging stations for batterypowered electric vehicle transport. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev 2013;58:76–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2013.07.003. [120] Han S, Han S, Aki H. A practical battery wear model for electric vehicle charging applications. Appl Energy 2014;113:1100–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.08.062. [121] Duarte GO, Varella RA, Gonçalves GA, Farias TL. Effect of battery state of charge on fuel use and pollutant emissions of a full hybrid electric light duty vehicle. J Power Sources 2014;246:377–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.07.103. [122] Infrastructure de recharge pour vehicule electrique. Schneider Electr; 2014. 〈http://www.schneider-electric.com/products/fr/fr/〉 [Accessed 9 September 2014]. [123] Yang J, Sun H. Battery swap station location-routing problem with capacitated electric vehicles. Comput Oper Res 2014;55:217–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.cor.2014.07.003. [124] Rao R, Zhang X, Xie J, Ju L. Optimizing electric vehicle users' charging behavior in battery swapping mode. Appl Energy 2015;155:547–59. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.05.125. [125] Adler JD, Mirchandani PB. Online routing and battery reservations for electric vehicles with swappable batteries. Transp Res Part B Methodol 2014;70:285–302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2014.09.005. [126] Armstrong M, El Hajj Moussa C, Adnot J, Galli A, Riviere P. Optimal recharging strategy for battery-switch stations for electric vehicles in France. Energy Policy 2013;60:569–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.089. [127] Better Place The Global Provider of EV Networks and Services; 2014. [128] Villa JL, Sallán J, Llombart A, Sanz JF. Design of a high frequency Inductively Coupled Power Transfer system for electric vehicle battery charge. Appl Energy 2009;86:355–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.05.009. [129] Kalwar KA, Aamir M, Mekhilef S. Inductively coupled power transfer (ICPT) for electric vehicle charging – a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;47:462–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.040. [130] Renault Kangoo ZE. Renault; 2014 〈https://www.renault.co.uk/vehicles/newvehicles/kangoo-ze.html〉 [Accessed 30 August 2014]. [131] 100% Electric Nissan Leaf. NISSAN UK; n.d. 〈http://www.nissan.co.uk/? Cid=pselectricvehicleUK_enelectricvehiclelocuk & kw=Nissan_leaf〉 [Accessed 7 January 2015]. [132] Omar N, Daowd M, Hegazy O, Al Sakka M, Coosemans T, Van Den Bossche P, et al. Assessment of lithium-ion capacitor for using in battery electric vehicle and hybrid electric vehicle applications. Electrochim Acta 2012;86:305–15. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2012.03.026. [133] Ugle R, Li Y, Dhingra A. Equalization integrated online monitoring of health map and worthiness of replacement for battery pack of electric vehicles. J Power Sources 2013;223:293–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.09.083. [134] Saw LH, Somasundaram K, Ye Y, Tay aaO. Electro-thermal analysis of Lithium Iron Phosphate battery for electric vehicles. J Power Sources 2014;249:231–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.10.052. [135] Škugor B, Deur J. A novel model of electric vehicle fleet aggregate battery for energy planning studies. Energy 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.030. [136] Beaudet A. Competing pathways for the decarbonisation of road transport: a comparative analysis of electric and hydrogen vehicles (a thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy). University of London; 2010. [137] Gaines L, Nelson P. Lithium‐ion batteries: possible materials issues. Scenario 2009:1–16. [138] Mineral Commodity Summaries 2010; 2013. [139] Mineral Commodity Summaries 2007; 2012. [140] Thein S, Chang YS. Decision making model for lifecycle assessment of lithium-ion battery for electric vehicle – a case study for smart electric bus project in Korea. J Power Sources 2014;249:142–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.10.078. [141] Evans RK. An abundance of Lithium: Part one; 2012 .

429


A. Mahmoudzadeh Andwari et al. [171] Björnsson L-H, Karlsson S. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles: how individual movement patterns affect battery requirements, the potential to replace conventional fuels, and economic viability. Appl Energy 2015;143:336–47. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.041. [172] Wegener K, Andrew S, Raatz A, Dröder K, Herrmann C. Disassembly of electric vehicle batteries using the example of the audi Q5 hybrid system. Procedia CIRP 2014;23:155–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.10.098. [173] Ahmadi L, Yip A, Fowler M, Young SB, Fraser RA. Environmental feasibility of reuse of electric vehicle batteries. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 2014;6:64–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2014.01.006. [174] Whitehouse C. Carbon accounting for electric vehicle systems. Imperial College London; 2009. [175] Notter D, Gauch M, Widmer R, Wäger P, Stamp A, Althaus RZ, et al. Contribution of Li-ion batteries to the environmental impact of electric vehicles. Environ Sci Technol 2010;44:6550. [176] Boureima FS, Messagie M, Matheys J, Wynen V, Sergeant N, van Mierlo J, et al. Comparative LCA of electric, hybrid, LPG and gasoline cars in Belgian context. World Electr Veh J 2009;3:1–8. [177] Neubauer J, Pesaran A, Bae C, Elder R, Cunningham B. Updating united states advanced battery consortium and department of energy battery technology targets for battery electric vehicles. J Power Sources 2014;271:614–21. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.06.043. [178] López-Arquillos A, Rubio-Romero JC, Súarez-Cebador M, Pardo-Ferreira MDC. Comparative risk assessment of vehicle maintenance activities: hybrid, battery electric, and hydrogen fuel cell cars. Int J Ind Ergon 2015;47:53–60. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2015.02.005. [179] DECC 2050 Pathways Analysis. Dep Energy Clim Chang; 2012. 〈http://2050calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk/〉 [Accessed 8 May 2015]. [180] Klamor S, Diekmann J, Grützke M, Kraft V, Kwade A, Winter M, et al. Aging investigations of a lithium-ion battery electrolyte from a fi eld-tested hybrid electric vehicle. J Power Sources 2015;273:83–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jpowsour.2014.09.064. [181] Gross R, Heptonstall P, Anable J, Greenacre P. E4tech. What policies are effective at reducing carbon emissions from surface passenger transport?; 2009. [182] Zhang P, Yan F, Du C. A comprehensive analysis of energy management strategies

[183]

[184]

[185]

[186] [187]

[188] [189]

[190] [191]

[192]

[193]

[194]

[195]

430

for hybrid electric vehicles based on bibliometrics. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;48:88–104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.093. Khodakarami A, Farahani HF, Aghaei J. Stochastic characterization of electricity energy markets including plug-in electric vehicles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;69:112–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.094. Yang Z, Li K, Foley A. Computational scheduling methods for integrating plug-in electric vehicles with power systems: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;51:396–416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.06.007. Zou Y, Hu X, Ma H, Li SE. Combined State of Charge and State of Health estimation over lithium-ion battery cell cycle lifespan for electric vehicles. J Power Sources 2015;273:793–803. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.09.146. IEA. Electric and Plug-in Hybrid Vehicle Roadmap; 2010. Cordoba-arenas A, Onori S, Guezennec Y, Rizzoni G. Capacity and power fade PHEV cycle-life model for lithium-ion battery cells containing NMC-LMO positive electrodes. J Power Sources 2013;278:473–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jpowsour.2014.12.047. Plug-in car grant eligibility guidance. Dep Transp; 2015. Redelbach M, Özdemir ED, Friedrich HE. Optimizing battery sizes of plug-in hybrid and extended range electric vehicles for different user types. Energy Policy 2014;73:158–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.05.052. PricewaterhouseCoopers. Study on urban access restrictions. Final Report. 2010. Pei L, Zhu C, Wang T, Lu R, Chan CC. Online peak power prediction based on a parameter and state estimator for lithium-ion batteries in electric vehicles. Energy 2014;66:766–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.02.009. He F, Yin Y, Lawphongpanich S. Network equilibrium models with battery electric vehicles. Transp Res Part B Methodol 2014;67:306–19. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.trb.2014.05.010. Europaweite Initiative Green eMotion soll Elektromobilität den Weg ebnen. Green Emot; 2011. h〈ttp://www.greenemotion-project.eu/upload/pdf/press/german_ kickoff_Green_eMmotion_04-01-2011.pdf〉[Accessed 3 April 2015]. Sun X-H, Yamamoto T, Morikawa T. Stochastic frontier analysis of excess access to mid-trip battery electric vehicle fast charging. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 2015;34:83–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.10.006. Helms S, Isbrand KB. Project Green eMotion. Green Emot; 2014 〈http://www. greenemotion-project.eu〉 [Accessed 3 February 2015].