IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1806.06947.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Forecasting the value of battery electric vehicles compared to internal combustion engine vehicles: the influence of driving range and battery technology

Author

Listed:
  • JongRoul Woo
  • Christopher L. Magee

Abstract

Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) are now clearly a promising candidate in addressing the environmental problems associated with conventional internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). However, BEVs, unlike ICEVs, are still not widely accepted in the automobile market but continuing technological change could overcome this barrier. The aim of this study is to assess and forecast whether and when design changes and technological improvements related to major challenges in driving range and battery cost will make the user value of BEVs greater than the user value of ICEVs. Specifically, we estimate the relative user value of BEVs and ICEVs resulting after design modifications to achieve different driving ranges by considering the engineering trade-offs based on a vehicle simulation. Then, we analyze when the relative user value of BEVs is expected to exceed ICEVs as the energy density and cost of batteries improve because of ongoing technological change. Our analysis demonstrates that the relative value of BEVs is lower than that of ICEVs because BEVs have high battery cost and high cost of time spent recharging despite high torque, high fuel efficiency, and low fuel cost. Moreover, we found the relative value differences between BEVs and ICEVs are found to be less in high performance large cars than in low performance compact cars because BEVs can achieve high acceleration performance more easily than ICEVs. In addition, this study predicts that in approximately 2050, high performance large BEVs could have higher relative value than high performance large ICEVs because of technological improvements in batteries; however low performance compact BEVs are still very likely to have significantly lower user value than comparable ICEVs until well beyond 2050.

Suggested Citation

  • JongRoul Woo & Christopher L. Magee, 2018. "Forecasting the value of battery electric vehicles compared to internal combustion engine vehicles: the influence of driving range and battery technology," Papers 1806.06947, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1806.06947
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.06947
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Farmer, J. Doyne & Lafond, François, 2016. "How predictable is technological progress?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 647-665.
    2. Hackbarth, André & Madlener, Reinhard, 2011. "Consumer Preferences for Alternative Fuel Vehicles: A Discrete Choice Analysis," FCN Working Papers 20/2011, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN).
    3. DeShazo, J.R. & Sheldon, Tamara L. & Carson, Richard T., 2017. "Designing policy incentives for cleaner technologies: Lessons from California's plug-in electric vehicle rebate program," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 18-43.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tamer Khraisha & Keren Arthur, 2018. "Can we have a general theory of financial innovation processes? A conceptual review," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 4(1), pages 1-27, December.
    2. Zaid A. Aljawary & Santiago de Pablo & Luis Carlos Herrero-de Lucas & Fernando Martinez-Rodrigo, 2020. "Local Carrier PWM for Modular Multilevel Converters with Distributed PV Cells and Circulating Current Reduction," Energies, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 13(21), pages 1-21, October.
    3. Bhardwaj, Chandan & Axsen, Jonn & Kern, Florian & McCollum, David, 2020. "Why have multiple climate policies for light-duty vehicles? Policy mix rationales, interactions and research gaps," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 309-326.
    4. Xingping Zhang & Rao Rao & Jian Xie & Yanni Liang, 2014. "The Current Dilemma and Future Path of China’s Electric Vehicles," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 6(3), pages 1-27, March.
    5. José L. Torres & Pablo Casas, 2020. "Automation, Automatic Capital Returns, and the Functional Income Distribution," Working Papers 2020-02, Universidad de Málaga, Department of Economic Theory, Málaga Economic Theory Research Center.
    6. Lafond, François & Bailey, Aimee Gotway & Bakker, Jan David & Rebois, Dylan & Zadourian, Rubina & McSharry, Patrick & Farmer, J. Doyne, 2018. "How well do experience curves predict technological progress? A method for making distributional forecasts," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 104-117.
    7. Alexandros Dimitropoulos, 2014. "The Influence of Environmental Concerns on Drivers’ Preferences for Electric Cars," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 14-128/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    8. Klein, Martin & Deissenroth, Marc, 2017. "When do households invest in solar photovoltaics? An application of prospect theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 270-278.
    9. Hötte, Kerstin & Pichler, Anton & Lafond, François, 2021. "The rise of science in low-carbon energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    10. Krupa, Joel & Harvey, L.D. Danny, 2017. "Renewable electricity finance in the United States: A state-of-the-art review," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 913-929.
    11. Jenn, Alan & Lee, Jae Hyun & Hardman, Scott & Tal, Gil, 2020. "An in-depth examination of electric vehicle incentives: Consumer heterogeneity and changing response over time," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 97-109.
    12. Herche, Wesley, 2017. "Solar energy strategies in the U.S. utility market," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 590-595.
    13. Anton Pichler & Franc{c}ois Lafond & J. Doyne Farmer, 2020. "Technological interdependencies predict innovation dynamics," Papers 2003.00580, arXiv.org.
    14. David F. Hendry, 2020. "First in, First out: Econometric Modelling of UK Annual CO_2 Emissions, 1860–2017," Economics Papers 2020-W02, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford.
    15. Mario Coccia, 2019. "Technological Parasitism," Papers 1901.09073, arXiv.org.
    16. Nathan Delacrétaz & Bruno Lanz & Jeremy van Dijk, 2020. "The chicken or the egg: Technology adoption and network infrastructure in the market for electric vehicles," IRENE Working Papers 20-08, IRENE Institute of Economic Research.
    17. Cherchi, Elisabetta, 2017. "A stated choice experiment to measure the effect of informational and normative conformity in the preference for electric vehicles," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 88-104.
    18. Sheldon, Tamara L. & Dua, Rubal, 2020. "Effectiveness of China's plug-in electric vehicle subsidy," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    19. Pearce, Phoebe & Slade, Raphael, 2018. "Feed-in tariffs for solar microgeneration: Policy evaluation and capacity projections using a realistic agent-based model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 95-111.
    20. Hackbarth, André & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Willingness-to-pay for alternative fuel vehicle characteristics: A stated choice study for Germany," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 89-111.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1806.06947. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.