1 Analysis and discussion The structure of
1 Analysis and discussionThe structureof the support for vehicle purchase and infrastructure development isdifferent. While in the case of purchase subsidy, the consumer stakeholder ownsthe vehicle and the government just pays the subsidy, in case of charginginfrastructure and refueling stations, a model of public-private partnership isfollowed in many countries.
Incentives for EVs purchase are of the directeconomic incentives and incentives for charging infrastructure is of directcollaborative and direct economic incentives. Direct incentive means that thesubsidy is transferred to consumer in monetary value 12 andcollaborative incentive means the government plays a collaborative andmanagerial role in developing infrastructure 13.Although thepurchase subsidy for vehicles is usually the most noticeable form ofsubsidizing EVs in each country or jurisdiction (a research in Norway showedthat for more than 80% of responders to a survey purchase tax and VAT are ofhigh importance 9),it should also be noted that incentivizing charging infrastructure has asignificant effect on the large-scale deployment of electric vehicles. Forinstance, Zubaryeva et al. 14stated that availability of proper number of charging infrastructure has asignificant effect on widespread deployment of electric vehicles in Europe. Sierzchula et al 15 also stated that adding a chargingstructure per 100,000 residents has twice the impact on the EV market share ina country than $ 1,000 financial incentives for consumers.
Table 29 shows BEV, PHEV, and FCV stock incountries/jurisdictions compared in this work. As it can be seen, in 2016/2017the number of BEVs and PHEVs are considerably higher than the number of FCVs inall countries/jurisdictions considered. Table29. Comparison of number ofBEVs, PHEVs, and FCVs in different countries/jurisdictions Country BEV stock PHEV stock FCV stock Japan 86,390 (2016) 64,860 (2016) 1800 (March 2017) South Korea 10,770 (2016) 440 (2016) 100 (2016) China 483,190 (2016) 165,580 (2016) 60 (March 2017) Germany 40,920 (2016) 31,810 (2016) 477 (2017) France 66,970 (2016) 17,030 (2016) 130 (November 2016) United Kingdom 31,460 (2016) 54,960 (2016) 28 (Toyota Mirais sold until March 2017) Norway 98,880 (2016) 34,380 (2016) 80 (October 2017) Denmark 8100 (BEVs and PHEVs) 68 (September 2017) Sweden 8030(2016) 21,290 (2016) 8 (May 2016) California 139,600 (2016) 128,863 (2016) 1600 (April 2017) Numerousreasons contribute to the higher number of BEVs and PHEVs compared to FCVs. There are more models of BEVs and PHEVs availablefor purchase.
Governments have longer incentivized purchase of BEVs and PHEVscompared to FCVs. BEVs and PHEVs have also generally lower prices compared toFCVs. As there are more subsidies for BEV purchases all over the world comparedto FCVs, BEV manufacturers have bigger markets for mass production of theirvehicles. BEVs and PHEVs also have better consumer acceptability compared toFCV because of the concerns about the hydrogen stored in a FCV. BEVs and PHEVsalso don’t need extensive refueling infrastructure at the first stages ofdeployment like FCVs and BEV and PHEV owners can charge their vehicles at home.Out of the 10 countries/jurisdictions investigatedin this work, six of them provide higher purchase subsidy for FCVs compared toBEVs and PHEVs.
These countries and jurisdictions are: Japan, South Korea,China, Denmark, Norway, and California. In four of the countries/jurisdictionsinvestigated in this work, purchase subsidies are allocated based on GHG avehicle emits. Since BEVs and FCVs emit no GHG emission while being driven,they receive the same amount of purchase subsidy in the UK, Germany, France,and Sweden. Based on thepurchase subsidy values, it seems that generally European countries (except forScandinavian countries Denmark and Norway) tend to support EVs based on theiremissions. Using this method, BEVs and FCVs will receive the same purchasesubsidies. However, Denmark and Norwayalongside state of California and all three eastern Asia countries consideredin this work provide higher purchase subsidies for FCVs compared to purchasesubsidies for BEVs.
Although someresearches such as Zhang et al. 10believe that designing incentives based on amount of CO2 emissionsis a good approach, it should be noted that this method of incentivizing isgreatly in favor of BEVs and against FCVs. This is because of the pricedifference between BEVs and FCVs. Table30shows the price of selected electric vehicles.
As it can be seen in the table,BEVs are comparable to PHEVs while FCVs are generally more expensive than bothBEVs and PHEVs (All three types of vehicles include a price range for instanceEVs may range from 30,000 to 41000 US$ while PHEVS may range from 33,000 to48,000 US$) while they provide options such as long driving ranges and can beused for long-distance travels (with the condition of availability of enoughHRSs).Table 30. Price of selected EVs (FCV, BEV and PHEV) Car model Technology Range (miles) MSRP1 (USD) Reference 2017 Toyota Mirai FCV 312 57,500 80 2017 Nissan Leaf BEV 107 30,680 – 36,790 81 2017 Kia Soul EV BEV 93 32,250 – 35,950 81 2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV BEV 238 36,620 – 40,905 81 2017 Ford Fusion Energi PHEV 21 (all electric) 33,120 – 41,120 81 2017 BMW i3 REX (94 Amp-hour battery) PHEV 97 (all electric) 48,300 81 The reasonssuch as lower prices and less need for extensive charging infrastructure has ledto BEVs and PHEVs to be lower hanging fruits for governments to incentivizecompared to FCVs. The introduction of FCVsis also more complex than BEVs and PHEVs not only because of aforementionedreasons but also because of its use of a new energy carrier which not onlyneeds specific technology for production but also needs specific technology forstorage and new infrastructure for distribution. BEVs are fueled withelectricity which has had established generation, transmission and distributioninfrastructure for many years.