Electric Vehicles - State of play and policy framework

The Electric Vehicle –
A major contributor to EU energy & climate policy
objectives
Summer 2017
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
Velázquez 157, 5th Floor
28002 Madrid
Spain

Disclaimer
While this publication has been prepared with care, Creara and European Copper Institute provide
no warranty with regards to the content and shall not be liable for any direct, incidental or
consequential damages that may result from the use of the information or the data contained.

The Electric Vehicle -
A major contributor to EU energy & climate policy objectives 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Executive summary.............................................................................................................................3
2 List of reviewers................................................................................................................................12
3 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................13
3.1 Objectives and scope of document ..............................................................................................13
3.2 Potential of the EV - Why is the EV of interest..............................................................................13
3.3 Types of EVs...............................................................................................................................21
3.4 Batteries for EVs..........................................................................................................................28
3.5 Charging process and infrastructure ............................................................................................32
4 Market................................................................................................................................................42
4.1.1 EV market............................................................................................................................42
4.1.2 EV infrastructure market.......................................................................................................46
4.2 EV industry and services .............................................................................................................46
4.2.1 Sale and maintenance of vehicles and recharging services ..................................................46
4.2.2 Examples of new business models.......................................................................................48
4.2.3 Grid services........................................................................................................................49
4.3 Economic rationale......................................................................................................................52
4.3.1 TCO analysis of The European Consumer Organization (BEUC)..........................................52
4.3.2 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) TCO analysis........................................................54
4.4 Outlook........................................................................................................................................59
5 Regulation .........................................................................................................................................63
5.1 Objectives and targets.................................................................................................................63
5.1.1 Europe.................................................................................................................................63
5.1.2 National regulation...............................................................................................................71
5.2 Incentives....................................................................................................................................72
6 Case Studies .....................................................................................................................................77
6.1 Norway........................................................................................................................................77
6.2 Spain...........................................................................................................................................80
6.2.1 Economic comparison..........................................................................................................83
6.2.2 Example of fleet audit...........................................................................................................85
7 Recommendations............................................................................................................................87
7.1 Recommendations for market uptake...........................................................................................87
7.2 Recommendations for leveraging the potential of EV benefits ......................................................87

8 Annex.................................................................................................................................................89

1 Executive summary
The objective of this document is to contribute to a better understanding of the potential impact of a transition
to electric vehicles (EVs) in Europe and of the barriers that currently impede the realization of this potential.
The research and analysis contained in this document indicates that the EV holds enormous environmental,
social and economic benefits for Europe. However, it also shows that despite some progress in the right
direction, we are currently a long way from realizing it. For this potential to be unlocked to a material extent
within a 2050 horizon, a series of barriers need to be surpassed through collaboration by all stakeholders.
Details of these findings are provided below1
and recommendations on how to increase EV market uptake and
to leverage the potential of EV benefits are presented at the end of the executive summary.
Potential of the EV
A high penetration of EVs would have a positive impact on Europe as a result of, among others, the reduction
in GHG emissions and energy dependence. The EV therefore has a high potential to contribute to EU energy
and climate policy objectives:
 Electric vehicles are important contributors to energy efficiency, e.g. battery electric vehicles
(BEV) can be more than 2,5 times more efficient than internal combustion engines (ICE)
regarding well-to-wheel efficiency (compared to traditional ICE vehicles)
- Transport is the sector with the largest energy consumption in Europe (33,1% of EU28
final energy consumption in 2015) and road transport represents the largest share of
this consumption
- Even though showing a decreasing trend since the peak in 2007, road transport has
increased its energy consumption by over 20% since 1990
 The main driver for electric vehicle deployment is the prospect of zero tailpipe emissions of
greenhouse gases (GHG) and air pollutants, however, as cars are responsible for around 12%
of total EU emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2)
- “Road transport is the second largest greenhouse-gas emitting sector in the Union and
its emissions continue to rise. If the climate change impact of road transport continues
to increase, it will significantly undermine reductions made by other sectors to combat
climate change”2
1
The present document is the result of an initial round of analysis in late 2016 covering existing research and
the review of the document by numerous experts in early 2017. The final version of this document takes
comments provided by the experts into account.
2
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02009R0443-20140408&from=EN

 A large-scale implementation (80% penetration) of EVs in European passenger vehicle stock
would cover 8,6% of the EU CO2 emission reduction target for 2050 (80% reduction of 1990
levels), taking into account emissions from additional power generation (considering increasing
shares of renewable energy sources)
Figure 1 – Passenger car transport sector CO2 emission1
reductions2
relative to 2010 (EU-28
aggregate)
 According to an ICCT study, 1.500 million tons of CO2 per year could be avoided worldwide in
2050 through EVs (assuming close to 90% of new passenger vehicle sales being electric
vehicles)
 The reduction of emissions depends highly on the generation mix used to produce the power
consumed by plug-in EVs
- Although EVs do not present any tailpipe emission, there are emissions associated to
electricity production that will depend on the power mix of each network
- Countries that have a coal-heavy mix will increase their emissions by electrifying
transport, however, they will move emissions further away from cities
 To cover the electricity consumption of a car fleet with high EV penetration (80%) additional
generation capacity is needed. If based completely on renewable energy technologies,

according to the Öko-Institut, a total additional installed capacity of 170 GW would be necessary
in the European electricity system by 2050
- EVs should be used to push forward the overall energy transition by making use of their
capacity to provide services to the electricity grid like Vehicle-to-Grid which “is the
technology that enables electricity storing during off-peak hours and electricity
recovering from EV batteries into the network during peak hours”3
thereby allowing to
level the electricity load and to integrate fluctuating and non-manageable renewable
generation
 Electric vehicles also provide a series of social benefits
- Toxic air pollutants, such as NOx, and noise will either be reduced or eliminated from
roads and urban areas with a positive social impact in terms of air quality and increased
health benefits
 The EV can contribute significantly to decreasing energy import dependencies of the European
Union and free up funds for investment in other industries:
- “Alternative fuels are urgently needed to break the over-dependence of European
transport on oil. Transport in Europe is 94 % dependent on oil, 84 % of which is being
imported, with a bill of up to €1 billion per day, and increasingly costly effects on the
environment”4
- “Reducing EU citizens’ bills at the fuel pump and shifting spending towards other, more
labour-intensive, areas of the economy induces net job creation”
 The transition to an electro-mobility based system presents a new end-to-end value chain with
significant impact on each phase of the conventional automotive value chain
- Existing players (e.g. manufacturers) are adapting/ extending their activities while new
players are entering the market (e.g. service providers)
- New business models will keep arising as the market develops and new actors enter
the field. At the same time, new business models will help pushing acceptance of the
electric vehicle and its large-scale implementation
- Europe is in a position to lead this transformation and benefit from the value this shall
bring its population, not only through environmental conditions, but also through wealth
and job creation
3
http://web.archive.org/web/20120703002757/http://www.evwind.es/contenidos.php?id_cont=10
4
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/cpt_en

Electric vehicle technology
An electric vehicle can be defined as “a vehicle which is powered by an electric motor drawing current from
rechargeable storage batteries, fuel cells, or other portable sources of electrical current, and which may include
a nonelectrical source of power designed to charge batteries and components thereof”5
.
 There are several types of electric vehicles (EVs), although all of these have in common the
usage of an energy storage device or battery
- Types of EVs include: Hybrid and plug-in electric vehicles (HEV and PHEV), Range
extended electric vehicles (REEV), Battery electric vehicles (BEV) and Fuel cell electric
vehicles (FCEV)
- The main difference between them lies in the powertrain’s configuration
 As explained above, electric vehicles have a higher efficiency than ICEs
- Plug-in electric vehicles (BEVs and PHEVs) have the highest efficiencies, both for
vehicle and well-to-wheel, since there are no intermediate energy transformation
processes
Figure 2 – Vehicle and well-to-wheel consumption by powertrain (indicative)
- Initial investment costs for EVs are still higher than for ICEs. Depending on usage
patterns an EV can have a lower Total Cost of Ownership:
 Purchasing prices for EVs are higher than for ICE (not taking into account
investment incentives)
5
https://definitions.uslegal.com/e/electric-vehicle/

 The usage on the other hand is cheaper. With current fuel cost and taxation in
Europe6
, a 100-km trip would cost about one-fifth of the cost of the same trip
with a car powered by gasoline (not considering investment cost). In the US,
the difference is smaller due to lower fuel taxations. This reduction translates
into fuel savings exceeding EUR 2.700 in Europe and EUR 1.800 in the US
over a period of 5 years (considering average usage patterns)
 Currently, there is a TCO parity of about 9 years (in the US, according to the
EPRI), a time span which should be reduced significantly in the coming years
(BEUC estimates that by 2020 a 4-year TCO parity will be reached in Europe)
Figure 3 – Cumulative expenditure of an EV and ICE
 Batteries are a key element of electric vehicles as they determine the autonomy of the vehicle
- A big effort has been put into battery research to improve existing battery technologies
and develop new technologies capable of storing more energy and overcoming the
range constraint which is hindering EV deployment
6
Global EV Outlook 2016, International Energy Agency

- The low autonomy of EV causes range anxiety, a perceived drawback of electric
vehicles
 The cost of the battery pack is the main driver of the total cost of ownership of electric vehicles.
- Although declining, the battery cost is still the reason for EVs’ higher upfront price
compared to conventional ICE cars
- The downward trend in cost is expected to continue as the technology matures by
moving along the learning curve and production capacity expands. Technology
evolution is likely to drive a significant drop by 2020
Current market situation and barriers for development
Even though the initial investment cost is usually higher for EV compared to ICE vehicles, they have a better
efficiency which results in lower running costs. Market development has been slow as several barriers limit EV
penetration.
 Current electric vehicle sales are still low compared to the overall vehicle market although
growing at attractive rates:
- Worldwide sales of EVs, including BEVs and PHEVs, increased by 70% between 2014
and 2015, which accounts for a total of more than 550.000 units sold in 2015
- According to the IEA, a worldwide stock of close to 1,3 mio BEVs and PHEVs was
registered in 2015
- More specifically, Europe’s stock of BEVs and PHEVs grew by 70% and 136%
respectively from 2014 and 2015
 Significant differences between European countries can be found
- In Norway and the Netherlands significant shares of new sales were BEV and PHEV in
2015 (23,3% and 9,7%), whereas in Italy and Spain these were below or equal to 0,2%
 In order to increase EV penetration, several barriers must be overcome. As the European
Commission indicates “up to now, clean fuels have been held back by three main barriers: the
high cost of vehicles, a low level of consumer acceptance, and the lack of recharging and
refuelling stations”7
:
7
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1053_en.htm

 Even though various incentives for EV purchasers and users are available
which have a direct impact on the break-even point of the EV TCO compared
to an ICE market uptake is slow
 Consumers need to be made aware of the potential savings in the long run
(LCOE based on TCO) and of the available support mechanisms provided by
local and national governments
- Concerning retail purchase prises, ICE vehicles are expected to be the cheapest
technology until 2045, when BEVs and FCEVs will become more affordable due to
technology improvements and full-scale production
Figure 4 – Expected evolution for a 4-year TCO across technologies
- Although currently several light duty BEV models are available in the market with driving
ranges above 330 km, the limited range of current EV models leads to so-called “range
anxiety” in potential users. This problem is worsened by the fact that until now only very
limited recharging infrastructure has been installed.
 Current BEV driving ranges already makes them suitable for urban mobility. For
long journeys, the vehicles need to increase battery capacity (at reasonable
cost) and the availability of charging infrastructure along roads as well as
charging time need to improve
 Only 190.000 publicly accessible chargers had been installed worldwide in
2015

 Overcoming these barriers requires the support of policy-makers which need to adapt regulation
and provide incentives to achieve the needed EV adoption levels
- There is no specific regulation that deals with the EV in Europe, although many EU
regulations indirectly address this market through a scattered approach. In addition, EU
Member States have introduced incentive and support programs
- The ICCT says that “generally studies that assume greater technical advancement (e.g.
in battery technology) and increased policy support (e.g. R&D, infrastructure,
regulation) find 20% to over 50% electric vehicle shares are possible in leading electric
vehicle markets in the 2025-2030 timeframe. However, studies that considered lesser
technical advancement and policy support generally found that the electric vehicle
market, in various countries and globally, could remain as low as 5-10% in the 2025-
2030 timeframe”8
All elements related to the EV (technology, regulation, business models, etc.) are still evolving. The findings of
this research should be further discussed with experts in the field and the analysis should be regularly updated.
Recommendations
Based on the current status, the following recommendations are made to increase EV market uptake and for
leveraging the potential of EV benefits in Europe:
Recommendations for market uptake
 Specific targets for EV penetration and infrastructure deployment should be set for each
Member State
 Proposed standards for charging infrastructure need to be implemented effectively
 Stricter emission limits for manufacturer’s new car fleets should be set to assure continuous
technology development and attractive product and service offers for car users and buyers
 Consumers need to be informed about the advantages of the EV
 Member States (as well as regional and local governments) should be encouraged to offer
incentives for EVs and charging infrastructure for individuals and companies, additionally,
European funds should be made available for implementation projects for EVs
8
Global climate change mitigation potential from a transition to electric vehicles, ICCT, 2015

 Public authorities should receive more specific indications on procurement rules for clean and
energy-efficient vehicles, alternatively or additionally, European funds should be made available
to increase the investment barrier created by higher upfront costs of the EV
Recommendations for leveraging the potential of EV benefits
 Member States need to be encouraged to achieve and surpass their renewable energy targets
so that the additional electricity demand generated by the EV can be covered by emission-free
technologies
 Price signals for electricity consumption based on the availability (and demand) in the energy
system should reach the final consumer
 EV batteries can be used for V2G services and the electricity system, together with its
supporting norms and regulations, needs to be prepared to allow these services to be developed
(e.g. electricity consumer acting as temporary electricity supplier)

2 List of reviewers
CREARA and the European Copper Institute thank the experts that contributed their time and knowledge in
the review of this document. The content of the document remains however the sole responsibility of its
authors.
 Yoann Le Petit, Transport & Environment
 Teodora Serafimova, Bellona
 Jakub Stęchły
 Jacek Fior, Important Media Network
 Francesco Gattiglio, EUROBAT
 James Miller, Argonne National Laboratory
 Luc Vinckx
 Thomas Linget, Logos
 Francisco Laveron
 Manuel González, cidaut
 Javier Romo, cidaut
 Dr Huw Charles Davies, Coventry University

3 Introduction
3.1 Objectives and scope of document
The European Copper Institute has asked CREARA to prepare a White Paper on the electric vehicle (EV). The
present document is the result of an initial round of analysis in late 2016 covering existing research was and
the review of the document by numerous experts in early 2017. The final version of this document takes
comments provided by the experts into account. No detailed interviews have been carried out.
The objectives of the document are the following:
 To outline a potential contribution of EVs to the EU energy & climate objectives
 To describe the current situation of the EV
 To prepare policy messages based on the potential of EVs
The focus of the analysis has been set on Europe and electric passenger cars, although other vehicle types
are mentioned throughout the text where appropriate.
3.2 Potential of the EV - Why is the EV of interest
The European Commission indicates that “alternative fuels are urgently needed to break the over-dependence
of European transport on oil. Transport in Europe is 94 % dependent on oil, 84 % of which is being imported,
with a bill of up to €1 billion per day, and increasingly costly effects on the environment”9
. Electricity is one of
the available alternative fuels.
An electric vehicle can be defined as “a vehicle which is powered by an electric motor drawing current from
rechargeable storage batteries, fuel cells, or other portable sources of electrical current, and which may include
a nonelectrical source of power designed to charge batteries and components thereof”10
.
The main driver for electric vehicle deployment is the prospect of zero tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases
(GHG) and air pollutants. “Road transport is the second largest greenhouse-gas emitting sector in the Union
and its emissions continue to rise. If the climate change impact of road transport continues to increase, it will
significantly undermine reductions made by other sectors to combat climate change”11
. Cars are responsible
for around 12% of total EU emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas.
9
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/urban/cpt_en
10
https://definitions.uslegal.com/e/electric-vehicle/
11
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02009R0443-20140408&from=EN

The Öko-Institut e.V.12
has estimated the potential emission reductions that can be achieved in EU passenger
road transport if the share of EVs increases considerably. The study covers three scenarios to 2030 and 2050.
As indicated in the following table, the difference lies in the expected EV share of passenger car stock in the
EU.
Figure 5 – EV share of passenger car stock for given scenarios
All three scenarios consider energy efficiency gains and renewable energy penetration over this period. EVs
replace emission intensive ICEs therefore reducing overall emissions of CO2 and pollutants. They also reduce
emissions from fuel production. However, the additional power demand leads to increased emissions from
electricity generation unless this demand is covered through renewable energy sources. The EV also
contributes to environmental targets by shifting pollution out of urban areas. The figure below shows the
expected changes of passenger road transport CO2 emission in terms of percentage reduction and absolute
emission values in tons.
12
https://www.oeko.de/fileadmin/oekodoc/Assessing-the-status-of-electrification-of-the-road-transport-
passenger-vehicles.pdf

Figure 6 - Passenger car transport sector CO2 emission1
reductions2
relative to 2010 (EU-28
aggregate)
As shown in Figure 1, the additional EV share brings significantly higher CO2 emission reductions than the
reference scenario even when including the additional emissions associated with the increased electricity
supply required from the power sector (considering the same generation mix across scenarios). Additionally,
by comparing with the reference scenario instead of the base year, one can eliminate the CO2reduction
associated with non-EV related energy efficiency gains during this period.
The following graph illustrates how the emission reductions of EV penetration can be segmented between the
transport (passenger road traffic) and the power sector:

Figure 7 - Impact of EV integration in terms of CO2 emissions (EU-28 aggregate)
Achieving the CO2 emission reduction of the EV-high scenario would mean that passenger road transport
would cover 8,6% of the EU reduction target to be achieved by 2050 (80% reduction of 1990 levels), with the
EV-mid scenario close to 6,5% of contribution is achieved. In case the situation in 2050 is closer to the
reference case, this contribution stays below 3%.
The reduction of emissions is not the only advantage of electric vehicles, for they also provide a series of social
benefits. Toxic air pollutants, such as NOx, and noise will either be reduced or eliminated from roads and urban
areas. This would have a positive social impact in terms of air quality and increased health benefits. The
following graph shows the effect of NOX emissions according to the Öko-Institut study.

Figure 8 - Impact of EV integration in terms of NOX emissions (EU-28 aggregate)
As shown in the graphs above, the additional emissions in the power sector are significantly smaller than the
emission reduction in the transport sector. These values have been calculated considering a specific power
mix for each country based on particular assumptions and projections included in the study, although the
assumption that renewable power generation gains weight in the power mix with the passing of time is shared
across all countries.
Furthermore, EVs will reduce the oil dependence as a primary source of fuel for transportation. “The fossil fuel
supply-chain (including refining, distribution and retail of fuels) is one of the least labour-intensive value chains,
and has most of its value-creation outside Europe. Therefore, reducing EU citizens’ bills at the fuel pump and
shifting spending towards other, more labour-intensive, areas of the economy induces net job creation”13
.
However, the reduction of oil consumption will affect tax collection for countries. Therefore, the benefits need
to be set against this reduced tax income or taxes may have to be increased on other products in order to
counteract for the loss.
EV deployment also brings improvement to the security of power supply and is a good opportunity for the
integration into the grid of variable renewable sources of energy. Electric vehicle fleets can be managed as an
13
Fueling Europe’s Future, Cambridge Econometrics, 2013

electricity storage system, supporting the existing grids and providing ancillary services such as backup power,
frequency response or load levelling.
Even though passenger car stock is expected to increase over time, due to more efficient vehicles, final energy
demand for the transport sector will experience a reduction. The following figure shows the expected evolution
in final energy demand of passenger road transport for given scenarios in 2030 and 2050.
Figure 9 - Final energy demand of passenger car transport (EU-28 aggregate)
Compared to the reference scenario, a higher EV penetration will reduce even more the final energy
consumption of transport. Furthermore, EV penetration will phase-out conventional fossil fuels like gasoline or
diesel against electricity, that can be generated by renewable energy sources.
In the EV-high scenario (with 80% of EV car stock penetration), up to 150 GW of additional generation
capacities would be needed, according to the Öko-Institut, 130 GW more than in the reference case. Assuming
a constant generation mix, this would mean additional capacities of up to 47 GW in wind, 25 GW in solar, 41
GW in fossil and 11 GW in nuclear installations. If all generation was based on renewable energies to start
with, 170 GW of additional RES generation would be required. This would be divided into 87 GW of wind, 45
GW of solar, 24 GW of hydro and 13 GW of biomass capacities. The total electricity demand to be covered
would increase from 57 TWh in the reference scenario to 448 TWh (~10% of overall electricity demand) in the
high penetration scenario. EV electricity demand could therefore push further RES investment.

There are a number of benefits provided by the EV to society and the energy system which are summarized
in the following figure and which will be explained throughout this document:
Figure 10 – Summary of EVs’ main benefits for society and the energy system
Two other important advantages of EVs, especially for the vehicle user, are a very high efficiency ratio and a
relatively low cost of the electric motor compared to conventional internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEs).
BEV motors can be more than 2,5 times more efficient than ICE regarding well-to-wheel efficiency (compared
to traditional ICE vehicles) and can therefore contribute to energy efficiency as well as result in reduced costs.
The higher efficiency of the EV results in much lower running costs compared to ICEs, providing an important
advantage for the user. With current fuel cost and taxation in Europe (Global EV Outlook 2016, IEA), a 100-
km trip would cost about one-fifth of the cost of the same trip with a car powered by gasoline. In the US, the
difference is smaller due to lower fuel taxations. This cost reduction translates into savings exceeding EUR
2.700 in Europe and EUR 1.800 in the US, over a period of 5 years (considering average usage patterns).
These benefits shall become more visible as the cost of batteries come down over time.
On the other hand, a serious drawback for EVs is the limitation that batteries impose in terms of range and
energy density. The limitations will be reduced over time thanks to the development of the technology. The
current situation and projected development suggest that, in the near term, electric vehicles will most likely
become more significant as personal vehicles and buses for public urban transportation. Other modes of
transport (planes, ships…), nevertheless, are not expected to be replaced by EVs due to the further
improvements these modes of transportation would require in terms of energy density and range extension.
As the European Commission summarises, “up to now, clean fuels have been held back by three main barriers:
the high cost of vehicles, a low level of consumer acceptance, and the lack of recharging and refuelling

stations”.14
There seems to be a vicious cycle that limits the development of the EV market. The vehicles so
far are relatively expensive. According to the manufacturers this is because of missing demand. Consumers
do not buy the vehicles because of high vehicle’s price and a perceived lack of recharging infrastructure. The
infrastructure is not being built because there are not enough vehicles to use it.
To push the transition to low emissions vehicles, the European Commission has set a mandatory average
emission target for vehicles for 2020. By this time, the fleet emission target to be achieved by all new passenger
cars is 95 grams of CO2 per km, in the case of light-commercial vehicles, this limit rises to 147 grams of CO2
per km, which represents a reduction of 40% compared to the 2007 fleet average. This measure will force car
manufacturers to adopt measures to reduce their average fleet emissions. It is currently unclear whether
tightening emission standards for vehicles will be a strong enough and quick enough driver for their
electrification.
Based on requirements for car emission reductions, the International Energy Agency (IEA) has developed a
BLUE Map Scenario that estimates that 50 million light-duty EVs and 50 million PHEVs shall be sold worldwide
along the year 2050. New registrations in 2015 accounted for 329.000 and 222.000 units respectively. To meet
this aggressive goal, market growth must be intensified in order to increase production rates and economies
of scale, develop the variety of models and complete the installation of necessary infrastructure. All
stakeholders, such as vehicle and battery manufacturers, electric utilities or charge providers, will need to work
together to make this happen. Furthermore, governments need to play a major role in terms of leading the
transition and supporting EV adoption by customers through a favourable policy framework.
The IEA Technology Roadmap recommends the following milestones and actions:
 By 2020:
- Achieve at least 5 million EV and PHEV combined global sales per year
- Roll out the first EV/PHEV sales in regions and urban areas that present the best
chances to deliver adequate infrastructure and low-GHG electricity, have adequate
government support and planning, and potentially are home to sufficient early adopter
target customers to reach desired levels
 By 2050, achieve a combined EV/PHEV sales share of at least 50% of light vehicles worldwide,
which would translate into 50 million units sold
As explained in this first section, the EV has significant potential to contribute to climate change targets, while
at the same time providing additional benefits for the user as well as society as a whole. Throughout the rest
of this chapter, the current technological status of the EV will be presented.
14
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1053_en.htm

3.3 Types of EVs
There are several types of electric vehicles (EVs), although all of these have in common the usage of an
energy storage device or battery. The main difference between them lies in the powertrain’s configuration.
Figure 11 – Classification of vehicles by differences across powertrains
As described in the table, three of the powertrains have an ICE as its primary source of power (ICEs, HEVs
and PHEVs) while the remainder use an electric motor as primary source of propulsion (REEVs, BEVs and
FCEVs). REEVs could be considered hybrid vehicles, since they have both an internal combustion and an
electric motor. In this document REEVs have been included in a separate category to highlight that the internal
combustion engine is not directly linked to the powertrain but merely generates electricity to support the battery.
Apart from the differences in technical characteristics, powertrains also have significant differences in terms of
retail price, although these differences are expected to be gradually reduced by 2050. According to the National
Academies Press, those vehicles with a fossil fuel engine (ICEs and HEVs) as a primary mover shall slightly
increase their purchase price over time, whereas that of PHEVs shall remain fairly stable and those of BEVs
and FCEVs shall decrease significantly.

With respect to retail purchase prices, ICE vehicles are expected to continue being the cheapest technology
until 2045, when BEVs and FCEVs are expected to become the most affordable option. BEVs and FCEVs
present the most significant cost reduction in the short and mid-term due to expected technology improvements
and the onset of full-scale production. Respectively, the price of BEVs and FCEVs are expected to decrease
by 1% and 1,6% annually from 2010 to 2050.
Figure 12 – Average retail purchase price of vehicles by technology
Among the many factors that determine the price of an EV, the cost of the battery is currently the most
important. The battery cost also plays an important role in determining the range (autonomy) that is packed
into the vehicle offers with one full charge. A higher range means a larger battery and higher overall purchasing
price of the vehicle.
The next figure shows comparative (average) values for different models of vehicles in terms of retail price,
range, autonomy and consumption. BEVs have the most limited range because of battery limitations, whereas
hybrid vehicles, combining a gasoline and an electric motor, have the largest autonomy and less overall
consumption than a conventional ICE. However, the MPG (miles per gallon) or MPGe (miles per gallon of
gasoline equivalent) is always higher for EVs than for ICEs.

Figure 13 – Comparative figures for a selection of models of different vehicle technologies
The chart above presents data for the Tesla S, a relatively expensive BEV with a comparitively high range.
Tesla has announced that it is starting to produce a model (Tesla 3) with a lower retail price and a more limited
range that shall be available by the end of 2017. This is an example of the relationship between batteries,
vehicle cost and range availability. Recently, however, Renault has launched the new version of the Zoe model,
available from the beginning of 2017 with a rated range of 400 km, which indicates a significant range for an
affordable EVs, indicating that the relationship between range and cost is becoming more affordable over time.
Tesla provide a further example of this evolution to more affordable prices with its revelation that over the next
couple of years it shall launch a model with a high-range battery system and around 800 km of autonomy.
Beyond the purchasing price, the charging cost is another important element to take into account by EV users.
The purchase decision of the vehicle should be based on the Total-Cost-of-Ownership (TCO, includes total
cost of acquisition, operating costs as well as costs related to replacement or upgrades throughout and at the
end of the life cycle). The following graph shows an indicative estimation for the total cost of traveling a hundred
kilometers depending on the cost per hour of recharging with a public or domestic charger for a given scenario.
It is important to remark that this graph is a simplification of a study done for the US market, which is also
indicative of what could be the case in Europe bearing in mind a few differences (e.g. price of electricity and
gasoline).

Figure 14 – Comparison of cost of driving 100 miles by technology and type of charging point
According to the graph, a trip with a gasoline vehicle will always be more expensive than the same trip with an
EV charged at home due to the level of domestic electricity tariffs. However, for a public charger, there will be
a break-even point with gasoline because of the extra payment required to cover the fee of the service provider
that is added to the cost of the electricity itself. This topic will be discussed in more detail in section 3.5 and in
the case studies presented in chapter 6.
From a system point of view, when comparing different powertrains, it is important to have a closer look at the
whole energy cycle, including the electricity used for EV charging. The well-to-wheel assessment measures
the efficiency of all processes involved, from the primary source of energy to the final vehicle’s energy
conversion, for each type of vehicle. As explained before, electric vehicles have a higher efficiency than ICEs.
The following table collects indicative data of each type of vehicle:

Figure 15 – Vehicle and well-to-wheel consumption by powertrain (indicative)
The table shows that there are differences between vehicle and well-to-wheel efficiencies. Even though the
FCEV has a high motor efficiency, the efficiency of the hydrogen conversion process through fuel cells only
amounts to around 50%. Furthermore, the hydrogen production is a very energy intensive process based on
natural gas reforming with efficiencies of up to 55%. These intermediate energy transformations significantly
reduce the overall efficiency of FCEVs, placing them at the end of the well-to-wheel efficiency ranking.
Plug-in electric vehicles (BEVs and PHEVs) have the highest efficiencies, both for vehicle and well-to-wheel,
since there are no intermediate energy transformation processes. However, even though the vehicles’
efficiency is constant, well-to-wheel figures vary depending on the energy mix producing the electricity that will
power the vehicle. If the electricity comes entirely from renewables, well-to-wheel efficiency will increase (e.g.
by considering PV as an unlimited source, without taking into account the efficiency of the technology), and
the opposite occurs if the primary source is fossil fuels fired in conventional power plants.
The following chart represents the associated CO2 emissions for electric vehicles based on the power mix as
well as grid losses of each country. There are significant differences between countries whose power mix is
based on coal and those who produce electricity from renewable sources:

Figure 16 – EV’s associated CO2 emissions by country
The previous graph indicates the average emissions of conventional ICEs15
. This is the threshold from which
countries would not benefit from electric vehicles in terms of emission reduction. This is the case of India,
South Africa and Australia, where ICEs emit less than the electricity production itself. Therefore, the lower the
emissions of the electricity power mix, the higher the benefits of EV deployment.
Throughout previous sections we have seen that, as for any other new technology that is still in development,
there are key benefits to the EV that are driving its adoption as well as hurdles that hinder its implementation.
The following table collects the key benefits (for the environment and for the user) and hurdles of the different
15
The number is based on official data of the European Commission (135 g CO2/ km) plus a 40% increase
(estimate of real emission indicated by consulted experts)

EV powertrains. It is important to underline that some of these hurdles result from the early stage of
development the technology is in, rather than an intrinsic attribute of the technology itself.
Figure 17 – EV powertrains benefits and hurdles
Before looking into detail at batteries and the recharging of the veicles, it is important to point out that apart
from the conventional passenger electric vehicles, there are other types of road vehicles that shall certainly
play a role in the transition to electro-mobility and decarbonisation of transport, but that are not the focus of
this study.
 Electric bicycles or e-bikes. They have conventional pedals but there is an optional assistance
from an electric motor. The European Environment Agency estimates that more than 1.325.000
e-bikes were sold in the EU in 2014
 Mopeds and e-scooters. They need no pedalling and are completely driven by an electric
motor, presenting almost the same features as conventional mopeds and scooters
 Electric tricycles and quadricycles. It is a growing market that might play an important role in
the EV adoption primarily in urban areas
 Light commercial vehicles (vans). Manufacturers are progressively increasing the number of
models and units but they are not yet broadly available
 Heavy-duty vehicles (HDVs). There are still trials being completed for long distances, since
the power needed to transport heavy loads will require oversize and expensive batteries.
However, there is a potential for urban freight distribution since required ranges are smaller, like
the Mercedes Urban e-Truck, to be sold by end of 2017.

 Electric buses. They have a great potential for future urban applications and there are currently
more than 500 units running in the EU. Moreover, around 115.000 buses have been sold in
China during 2016
3.4 Batteries for EVs
Batteries are a key element of electric vehicles as they determine the autonomy of the vehicle. A big effort has
been put into battery research to improve existing battery technologies and develop new technologies capable
of storing more energy and overcoming the range constraint which is hindering EV deployment. The low
autonomy of EV causes range anxiety, a perceived drawback of electric vehicles.
Traction batteries are used to power the propulsion of any electric vehicle. They are typically secondary
accumulators or rechargeable batteries. In contrast to a conventional starting, lighting and ignition (SLI) battery
an EV battery is designed to give power over a sustained period of time.
Traction batteries need to have a high ampere-hour capacity, with a relatively high power-to-weight ratio
(similar to the ICE’s horsepower), energy-to-weight ratio (similar to the ICE’s tank capacity) and energy density.
However, in comparison to conventional fossil fuels, current batteries have a much lower specific energy,
which is the reason of the limited range of electric vehicles.
The cost of the battery pack is the main driver of the total cost of ownership of electric vehicles. Although
declining, the battery cost is still the reason for EVs’ higher upfront price compared to conventional ICE cars.
The downward trend in cost is expected to continue as the technology matures by moving along the learning
curve and production capacity expands. Technology evolution is likely to drive a significant drop by 2020,
reaching a price of nearly 170 USD/kWh as well as an increase in the batteries energy density. As shown in
the following chart, a significant decrease in large-format battery as a result of the higher demand and,
therefore, growing economies of scale in production is also expected. These two factors will globally enhance
EV deployment, because of the lower EV cost for the customer and the wider range due to the higher energy
density.

Figure 18 – Evolution of electric and hybrid vehicle battery average energy density and cost
Despite the existence of alternative technologies for EV batteries, these are currently based mainly on lithium-
ion technology. This is due to its favourable characteristics, described below, compared to alternative
technologies:
 Better energy-to-weight ratio, they can output high energy and power per unit of battery mass,
making them lighter and smaller than other rechargeable batteries
 Speed of charging
 Almost no memory effect, which makes batteries lose their maximum energy capacity after
repeated charging cycles
According to the Association of European Automotive and Industrial Battery Manufacturers (EUROBAT),
batteries based on new chemistries, such as zinc-air, lithium-sulphur or lithium-air will not be available for
production on a significant scale before 2030. Until then, the market will be dominated by lead, lithium-ion and
sodium batteries. Another emerging trend intended to revolutionize energy storage technology is the
introduction of the graphene-based supercapacitors, capable of storing larger amounts of energy in a reduced
and lighter space.
Variations across lithium-ion models are found in the material of some internal components and in cell size:
 Small-format cells. Having been produced at large scale for more than 20 years, this type of
cells is mainly used in consumer electronics. Due to the cell’s composition, there is a risk of
reaction and ignition in case of overheating. To cope with this issue, an advanced cooling and
battery management system is used to avoid high temperatures in the cells. Tesla is the only
manufacturer using this format, and has started to produce battery packs for other companies
in its new gigafactory

 Large-format cells. Used by almost all other EV manufacturers, large-format cells have a lower
energy density than small-format cells, but do not present the overheating issue. However, its
price is higher because it does not benefit from the same economies of scale in production
Lithium-ion batteries come in a wide range of combinations of materials for anodes and cathodes. Each
combination presents different advantages and disadvantages. The most prominent technologies for electric
vehicle applications are described in the graph below, showing the trade-offs among them in terms of specific
energy and power, safety, performance, cost and life span.
Figure 19 – Trade-offs among the five principal lithium-ion battery technologies
As can be seen in the graph, each technology has its particular characteristics and there is no perfect
technology for automotive applications. That is why each manufacturer uses a different one to meet their own
expectations and desired features for their vehicles.
In order to illustrate this diversity across battery technology usage, the following table collects some examples
of commercial vehicles and the specific lithium-ion technology they use for their batteries.

Figure 20 – Lithium-ion technologies used in different commercial models
The electric vehicle battery value chain is composed of the seven steps shown in the following table. Each
step involves different stakeholders or industry participants, such as component manufacturers or mobility
operators.
Figure 21 – EV battery value chain
Across the battery value chain, there are different actors that cover different phases. From component and cell
production, to car assemblers and manufacturers. There are also different combinations of phases in the value
chain. Renault, for example, does not produce the batteries for its vehicles but has partnered with LG Chem
as its single provider of modules. Other companies, such as Tesla, are active in more phases of the value
chain and manufacture their own modules for their vehicles, in this case using Panasonic’s cells. It is important
to remark that Panasonic has already been active in the automotive industry producing batteries for
conventional ICEs while LG Chem is a new actor in the automotive sector, producing only lithium-ion batteries
for electric vehicles. Some automotive manufacturers, e.g. Daimler, have decided to reuse retired batteries to

build large storage facilities for grid services (e.g. batteries used by the vehicles of Daimler’s car sharing service
car2go). In the more mature area of battery recycling, Retriev Technologies has been recycling all kinds of
batteries for more than thirty years.
As any other electricity accumulation system, electric vehicle batteries suffer a degradation process over time
(battery ageing). It depends on several phenomena that have complex and sometimes poorly understood
interactions. Ageing takes place throughout battery life, both when the battery is being used (cycle ageing) and
when it is being stored (calendar ageing).
The main drivers for battery degradation are commonly assumed to be battery temperature, state of charge,
depth of discharge during cycles, number of cycles and current. These battery stressors are highly non-linear
and they exhibit strong interactions. To extend battery life, those stressors have to be kept at safe levels at all
times, at the cost of battery oversizing, thermal management systems, reduced charging speed and partial
charging.
Once an electric vehicle battery is no longer suitable for its intended application, it can be either recycled or
reused elsewhere. In the case of recycling, the battery is destroyed and most of the materials recovered. An
example of reusing would be to employ battery packs in large energy storage systems, as mentioned above.
3.5 Charging process and infrastructure
Like conventional vehicles EVs are dependent on external energy supply. The first source of battery charging
is regenerative braking, since an electric vehicle can recover energy from braking by using the electric motor
as a generator. During braking, a large amount of energy is generated in a short period of time, the battery is
therefore charged with a short pulse of high current. However, this energy is not enough to recharge a battery
so external charging infrastructure is also needed.
Electric vehicles will not be purchased if the user does not have access to recharging facilities which allow the
usage of EVs like vehicles with an internal combustion engine. However, this lack of recharging infrastructure
is mitigated by the fact that an estimated 95% of charging will take place at home, where drivers do not need
significant additional infrastructure.
EV charging behaviour differs from traditional refuelling because of the significant technical differences
between the two processes according to:
 Charging speed. An ICE can be fully refuelled in two or three minutes whereas charging an EV
can take from 30 minutes to 8 hours for a full battery
 Charging frequency. The fact that EVs have a reduced range capacity compared to traditional
ICE, increases the frequency with which EVs need to be plugged into a charging point, most of
the times at home

 Charging infrastructure availability. There is already an existing infrastructure of petrol
stations where ICEs can refuel their tanks while the availability of recharging points for electric
vehicles is still very limited
There are different ways of charging an electric vehicle. As shown in the following table, these can be divided
into conductive and inductive charging. Conductive charging makes use of a cable, while inductive charging
uses a wireless technology based on electromagnetic fields.
Figure 22 – Charging infrastructure archetypes
Inductive charging is not yet in a commercial stage, which is why the document shall focus on conductive
charging for this analysis.
The variety of EV charging options has created a complex system where each manufacturer or country has its
charging specifications. No standardization has been achieved in this area despite some efforts in this regard
in the European Alternative Fuels Directive: “Alternating current (AC) normal power recharging points for
electric vehicles shall be equipped, for interoperability purposes, at least with socket outlets or vehicle
connectors of Type 2 as described in standard EN 62196-2”)16
. Standardization in this field would simplify EV
recharging around the following key parameters:
 Power level. Both the voltage and the current will define the power level of the charging station
(in terms of kW) and this will have an impact on how quickly a battery can be charged
16
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32014L0094&from=en

 Electrical current. As the battery is a DC device, any EV charging process includes a
conversion of the AC power from the electrical grid to the DC power needed by the batteries
 Plugs. Nowadays, there is a wide variety of sockets with different characteristics to connect
electric vehicles to charging stations which are not compatible
 Battery size. Different EV models have different batteries and each battery pack has its own
electrical characteristics and thresholds that will determine the level of power and current at
which they can be charged
As mentioned before, a power inverter is required in every charging process. This condition sets two charging
modes, depending on whether the EV is supplied with AC or DC current. The main difference between AC and
DC charging is that in the case of DC charging, the AC/DC conversion is performed by the charging station
and therefore located outside the EV. In case of AC charging, the AC/DC converter is located inside the EV.
In this case, the role of the external charging station is to supply the EV with AC power directly from the grid,
as well as providing protection and control mechanisms that increase the safety of the charging process, and,
if needed, acting as a user interface to perform payment functions and smart management of the process.
Figure 23 – AC vs DC charging
The main advantage of AC charging is that AC charging stations are simpler and smaller, and therefore less
expensive than DC charging stations. This can be an important factor, as the success of the EV depends
greatly on the charging infrastructure deployment.
One should point out, however, that the generally stated price differences between AC and DC stations may
be overestimated. It is not uncommon to read in the press that a DC charging station may cost 3 to 4 times as
much as an AC station. This may be true for low power, household-type chargers. However, public chargers,
whether AC or DC, have specific needs such as anti-vandalism enclosures, dedicated power lines and even
transformers, civil works, communication systems, payment processing devices, etc. that greatly increase their

cost. This means that the cost difference due to the AC/DC converter, may not be so important for public
chargers.
The main disadvantage of AC charging is that it requires the EV to have an on-board current inverter. This
kind of electronic device is heavy and bulky because of its components, such as inductors or capacitors.
Moreover, the inverter in each EV will set a limit on the maximum power rate and charging speed. This
inconvenience does not exist in DC chargers, since the AC/DC converter is included in the charging station,
where there is no space or weight limitations. This is considered the main advantage of DC charging.
Apart from distinguishing between AC and DC charging, there are differences in charging speed. For slow
charging, all related devices are rated for a lower current than in fast charging. Therefore, slow charging is
generally performed in AC since:
 An on-board slow AC charger is included in almost all EVs, as EV owners expect to be able to
charge the vehicle at any standard socket or with an inexpensive dedicated slow AC charger at
home
 Slow DC charging has no real advantage over slow AC charging if a charger has already been
included in the EV. Moreover, a DC charger (which needs to include an AC/DC converter) is
generally more expensive than an AC charger
Nowadays, because of the on-board inverter current limitations mentioned above, EV manufacturers prefer
DC current for fast charging. However, new solutions have been created which deal with this issue. For
example, the solution designed by the French manufacturer Renault which provides an EV with AC charging
up to 44kW, taking advantage of already existing vehicle parts, such as the motor windings, to act as a power
converter.
The IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) has defined four modes of conductive charging:
 Mode 1 (AC): slow charging from a standard household-type socket-outlet, up to 16 Amperes,
without any specific safety or control features
 Mode 2 (AC): slow charging from a standard household-type socket-outlet, up to 16 Amperes,
with an in-cable protection device and a power level control that protects the user and the vehicle
 Mode 3 (AC): slow or fast charging using a specific EV socket-outlet and plug with control and
protection function permanently installed
 Mode 4 (DC): fast charging using an external charger with an AC/DC converter providing direct
current with power levels starting at 50 kW
Apart from the charging modes, there are several design options for the physical plugs required to connect
EVs to the charging equipment. These designs may be divided into four types:
 Type 1 (Yazaki) is widely used in Japan and the US. This type of plug is designed to connect a
cable from a charging equipment to an EV with a compatible inlet

 Type 2 (Mennekes) is the European standard for sockets. In this case, the purpose of the plug
is to connect a cable to the charging equipment. On the car side, the cable will usually have a
Type 1 socket. Type 2 plug are usually rated for higher power levels
 Type 3 (Scame) is very similar to Type 2, but the difference is that Type 3 sockets are designed
to fit with safety shutters installed on power outlets in order to protect both the users and the
equipment according to safety requirements in a limited number of European countries
 Type 4 (CHAdeMO) refers to fast DC chargers. These plugs follow the CHAdeMO standards
for charging protocol as well as the physical design of the socket and the vehicle inlet
Each plug type has different electrical features in terms of power and voltages. The most representative values
are collected in the following table:
Figure 24 – Electrical parameters for each plug type
The connection among charging modes and plug types is shown in the following table, where the main features
of each possibility are described.

Figure 25 – Mode Definition of Plugs and Sockets
In 2014, through Directive 2014/94/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on the deployment of
alternative fuels infrastructure (AFI directive), the EU has defined the Type 2 connector (Mennekes) as the
standard connector that all new EVs sold within the EU have to use.
For fast DC charging, a large group of US and EU carmakers has endorsed a combo connector that combines
all modes of slow and fast charging in a single connector, as proposed by SAE (Society of Automotive
Engineers) and ACEA (European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association). This connector is based on Type 1
connector for the US and on Type 2 connector for EU, but additional DC pins are added for ultrafast charging.
There have been several proposals for EV connectors for AC and DC charging based on Type 2 plugs, as
shown in the following table (with respective maximum ratings):

Figure 26 – AC/DC electric vehicle inlet options for Type 2 plug
The adoption of a standard connector for EV charging is certainly important for the deployment of a large-scale
charging infrastructure, but we must be aware that once a standard connector is adopted and becomes
widespread, it will be difficult to change in the short/medium term. The selected standard connector shall
effectively impose limits on the maximum charging speed for AC and DC charging and on the maximum
charging voltage. As a result, the choice of a standard connector shall have implications for years to come,
raising the stakes of the decision that has to be made.
In spite of the formerly mentioned European Commission directive, no actual standardization has yet taken
place in Europe. Several plug types are still being used across the continent. However, the proposed solution
according to the European directive sets that:
 AC slow and fast recharging points should be equipped with connectors Type 2, to enhance the
interoperability
 DC fast recharging points should be equipped with a plug which includes either a Type 1 or
Type 2 connector with additional DC pins, like the new proposal of SAE and ACEA
Another important feature of the charging infrastructure is its degree of accessibility for drivers. Charging points
can be defined according to three main categories.
 Domestic or private. They are placed in homes and business locations. Typically consisting of
charging boxes (called wall-boxes) or common household plugs
 Semi-public. They are placed on private ground but can be accessed by external users
 Public. Placed in public space such as roadside parking spaces or parking lots, usually
consisting of charging poles
In 2013, CREARA carried out a detailed assessment of the costs of EV charging stations. More than 25
sources were analysed, mostly publicly available studies from the EU and USA were reviewed and interviews

with installers, manufacturers and investors were carried out. The results of the assessment will be presented
here.
The cost estimation model considers installation costs (including all labour and material costs excluding the
charger which was considered as a separate item), the charger cost, and the net present value of the fixed
annual costs. A useful life of 20 years has been assumed for annual maintenance and operation costs which
cover the following:
 Power contract
 Back office, telecom & managing software
 Technical maintenance and repair
The cost for each of the considered charger types can be found in the following graph:
Figure 27 – TCO for chargers (average cost)
Domestic chargers are the most affordable ones, since they have the lowest power and simplest equipment.
The gap between a domestic and a public charger with the same electrical characteristics results from the
additional connections and external protections required for outdoor installations, among other reasons. In
public chargers, the total cost of ownership increases along with the power rate. DC chargers are significantly
more expensive than AC models, since they are more complex and have more components.
The next figure shows the global stock of charging outlets. Comparing these figures with those of car stock
evolution, one can see that publicly accessible charging facilities have seen the same growth trend.

Figure 28 – Global figures of charging outlets stock by type and year
Supposing a high penetration of EVs, this may lead to problems in public charging stations. The maximum
charging power available for fast AC charging through the current standard Type 2 connector is 43 kW (three
phase, 400 V, 63 A). This may seem a rather high power rate, as it allows for charging a mid-sized EV, such
as the Renault Zoe, to 80% of capacity in 15 minutes. From a practical perspective, 15 minutes is a relatively
long time, and many charging stations as well as additional space would be needed to charge a similar number
of vehicles as a regular petrol station is able to serve. This limitation in charging times is not as relevant in
urban areas as along the road network, since 95% of charging is expected to take place at home (for urban
mobility).
In the future, the situation for public charging for long distance travels (e.g. along highways) may be even more
complicated. As battery technology improves, yielding increased power densities and reduced costs, range
will increase, improving one of the EV’s main drawbacks. An increase in range will necessarily involve an
increase in battery’s capacity, given that efficiency improvements are unlikely to be significant in electrical
systems. This means that if the EV range is doubled, the time required to charge the batteries to 80% will
roughly be doubled, effectively increasing charging times. Even though at the same time an increase in range
reduces the need for charging during a journey.
Faster public charging is going to be needed to be able to charge the vehicle in a time comparable to what fuel
based car users are used to. This may be a limiting factor in the medium term for the adoption of fast AC
charging if the standard connector is not modified (given current capacity limits of 43 kW for AC charging). The
capacity limit set for DC charging is 140 kW and therefore offers significant margin for development. Upcoming
DC chargers will be rated up to 240 kW, for 600 V and 400 A.

Another charging model mentioned at the beginning of this section is battery swapping. This system requires
specifically designed swapping stations, where a vehicle´s discharged battery can be immediately replaced for
a fully charged one, avoiding waiting for a recharge. The main benefits and hurdles of battery swapping are
collected in the following table.
Figure 29 – Benefits and hurdles of battery swapping
In recent years, Better Place, Tesla and Mitsubishi have carried out several pilot programs to test battery
swapping systems, but all of them have failed and have therefore been dismantled.
The last charging alternative currently available for EVs is inductive charging. The technology transfers the
power between the charger and the EV by means of an emitting inductor, usually placed in the floor, and a
receiving inductor, placed in the EV. While there are advantages regarding security of operation and ease of
use (no charger is needed), the technology is still immature and there are limits to maximum power transfer
(around 4 kW currently), efficiency and cost.
Commercial products of this technology exist, both as an option offered by the EV manufacturer and as a third-
party retrofit for current EVs, but currently there is high uncertainty about whether this technology will ever be
implemented at large scale.

4 Market
The EV market situation will be assessed in this chapter. The current implementation level will be described,
covering vehicle offer and sales volumes as well as the number of charging points in Europe. Furthermore, a
short introduction to the value chain and new business models as well as V2G services is given.
4.1.1 EV market
The following graph shows the current market state for the most representative countries in terms of total
stock, market share of new sales and availability of charging infrastructure
Figure 30 – Current state of EV (BEV + PHEV) market in selected countries (2015)
Electric vehicle short-term adoption is mainly based on demand incentives, consumer willingness to pay extra
to cover the cost gap between EVs and ICEs and the acceptance of a shorter range. In the long-run, lower
battery prices will allow overcoming those barriers.
The EV market is, without doubt, in raise. Sales of EVs, including BEVs and PHEVs, accounted for over
550.000 units sold in 2015 an increase of 70% compared to 2014. The following figure shows the historical
figures of vehicle sales from 2010 to 2015 by region. Data is split in BEVs and PHEVs.

Figure 31 – Evolution of the global electric vehicle stock (BEVs and PHEVs)
The electric car stock has been growing at impressive rates since 2010, with the BEV uptake slightly ahead of
PHEV, which is growing faster though. With more than 200.000 BEVs sold, China has become the biggest
market for purely electric cars, overtaking both Europe and the US in 2015. However, aggregating both BEVs
and PHEVs, North America is still dominating the market. More than half of the global market is hoarded by
China and the US taken together.
Conventional hybrid-electric vehicles (HEV), which are not included in the graph, are still the market leaders,
before plug-in hybrid and battery-electric vehicles. In the EU, HEVs accounted for 1,4% of all new car sales in
2014 whereas PHEVs and BEVs made up about 0,7% in total. In the same year, in the US and Japan, more
than 3% and 20% of new sales respectively were HEVs.
Within Europe, the countries with the biggest EV market shares are the ones presented in the following graph.
These countries are also leading worldwide in terms of market share, followed by China, the UK, the US,
Germany and Japan.

Figure 32 – Market share of annual sales for BEVs and PHEVs by country in Europe
As shown in the graph, there are significant differences across countries within Europe. In Norway, BEVs and
PHEVs together accounted for almost 37% of all new vehicles sales in 2016. These figures place Norway in
the position of the world’s leading EV market in terms of relative market share. Another important European
market, the Netherlands, has decreased the number of EVs sold in 2016 compared to the year before. This
reduction is due to a change in the incentives program which has been cut for PHEVs which accounted for
93% of electric vehicles sales. Dutch incentives will be focused on BEVs from now on.
On the supply side, there are several traditional car manufacturers that have entered the electric vehicle
market, producing and selling several models. Some of these are based on existing ICE models, modified to
include a hybrid system, like the Volkswagen Golf GTE. Others are completely new models, specifically
designed to be electric cars, like the Nissan Leaf. The following table collects the most sold BEV and PHEV
models in Europe during the year 2015.

Figure 33 – Most sold electric vehicle models in Europe, 2015
In 2016, new electric models and manufacturers have appeared on the market and are expected to enter the
ranking of the most sold models. Some of them are Mercedes-Benz C350e, Volkswagen Passat GTE or Nissan
e-NV200, the first 100% electric commercial van.
An interesting statistic is the share EVs represent in each manufacturer’s sales mix. The following table shows
the manufacturers with the highest EV shares. Porsche, a manufacturer that does not have any model in the
most sold list, is the company with the third highest EV share because of its relatively low overall production.
Figure 34 – EV’s share in each manufacturer vehicle sales mix

4.1.2 EV infrastructure market
Along with EV adoption, charging infrastructure needs to be deployed. The following chart shows the evolution
of the stock of publicly accessible chargers by region, for slow and fast chargers.
Figure 35 – Stock of publicly accessible chargers by region
The number of both fast and slow chargers has grown since 2010. However, fast chargers are a lot less usual,
due to their higher price and specific requirements for EVs charging at these stations. Within Europe, the
presence of slow chargers in France and the Netherlands is remarkable, with more than 10.000 and 17.000
chargers respectively. On the other hand, the UK is, by far, the European country with the highest number of
fast chargers (around 1.200).
In one of its proposals for directive the European Commission set a target of charging points by 2020 for each
member state. It was foreseen that by that year close to 8 million points should be in place of which 10% should
be publicly accessible. The proposal was not included in the final version of the directive. This will be further
discussed in the regulation chapter.
4.2 EV industry and services
4.2.1 Sale and maintenance of vehicles and recharging services
The transition to an electro-mobility based system presents a new end-to-end value chain with significant
impact on each phase of the conventional automotive value chain.

Figure 36 – Impact of transition to electric vehicle on automotive value chain
The need for an adapted value chain as well as the emerging markets for new services and applications are
motivating stakeholders of the traditional automotive value chain and new entrants to develop innovative
approaches and business models acting not only as manufacturers but also as “mobility providers”. Moreover,
current actors, such as those involved in maintenance or recycling, will need to adapt to new requirements of
the electric vehicle.
Examples of new business models were already presented in the chapter on batteries (3.4). The trends are
forcing vehicle manufacturers to work on new models mainly focused on:
 Vertical OEM offerings. Some car manufacturers are integrating more phases than production,
entering the charging infrastructure side
 Battery leasing. As batteries are a critical piece in electric vehicles and because of their high
cost, some car manufacturers are studying the introduction of a battery leasing service apart
from the vehicle, to reduce customers’ concerns about durability and long-term performance as
well as reducing the purchasing down-payment
As one of the phases in the electric vehicle value chain, the improvement and deployment of charging
infrastructure is a critical enabler of EV scale-up. Several new services in this field are being experimented by
companies in the EV industry, such as:
 ChargePoint Mobile App or EasyPark have developed navigation software and apps related to
charging infrastructure
 EasyPark has created a payment, access and registration app to handle accounts with EV
charging service providers
 Charging Solutions is providing the installation and maintenance of charging point services
across the UK
 Nederland Elektrische is operating the charging infrastructure in the Netherlands in a similar
way as petrol stations

 Pilot programs are being carried out in battery swapping (several companies active in this area
have gone bankrupt)
The recharging business has to be profitable for the service provider in order to make the investment attractive.
Assuming a flat fee scheme, the profitability will depend on the percentage of utilization of the charging point
and the revenue per hour for the service provider which is strongly related to the electricity price.
4.2.2 Examples of new business models
New business models (BM) will help the electric vehicle mature and set the foundations for further EV adoption.
The concept of electro-mobility as a service is changing the traditional models of car ownership, shifting to
meet the same need in a more efficient way. An example of that is the car-sharing services provided in dense
urban areas, such as that the companies car2go and Zipcar are offering.
In 2016, CREARA developed a database of successful BMs related with the electric vehicle for the European
Copper Institute (ECI). After evaluating each identified BM according to five criteria (financial attractiveness
and contract flexibility for the user, infrastructure availability, innovation, replicability of business model), a
ranking was carried out. The 10 highest ranked BM are presented in the following table. These models cover
a wide range of services offering mainly implementation, finance and maintenance for electric vehicles.
Figure 37 – List of highest ranked EV business models

Among others, these businesses are directed at reducing the barriers for the consumer/ user, for example, by
providing the possibility of try-outing EVs before purchasing them or by providing access to EVs through car
sharing services which do not require purchase.
The already mentioned diversity in current EV systems and charging infrastructure brings additional barriers
such as different paying methods, charging fees, tolls, etc. To enhance EV deployment, these barriers need
to be overcome. In this field, homogenization or simplification of monetary transaction related to electric
vehicles should be done. For example, ZF (a driveline and chassis manufacturer), UBS (a financial institution)
and innogy Innovation Hub (a start-up developer of a major utility) have announced a joint venture to develop
an eWallet platform based on blockchain technology: “The Car eWallet will allow users pay on-the-go for
highway tolls, parking fees and electric charging, and can collect fees for car-sharing, energy provisioning to
the power system or delivery services” 17
.
New business models will keep arising as the market develops and new actors enter the field. At the same
time, new business models will help pushing acceptance of the electric vehicle and its large-scale
implementation. The development of this area should therefore be closely followed.
4.2.3 Grid services
On the utility side, there is a clear connection between electro-mobility and the power sector. Large EV uptake
may impact electricity systems, particularly when the charging process is not well controlled. Peaks in charging
demand would be introduced if owners connect their vehicles on arrival at home or at work.
However, when EV’s charging is managed and optimized, it has three major beneficial applications for the
electrical system:
 Smart grid applications. Coordination of smart charging is necessary to reduce EVs’ impact
on the current network and to manage the grid efficiently
 Aggregating demand-side response and monetizing flexibility. Demand-side response
through EVs may play an important role in reducing demand volatility, variable RES integration
and ancillary services provision
 Stationary storage using EV batteries. EVs have a potential to provide a cost-effective option
for distributed electricity storage
The first application (smart charging) is a one-direction service, since the energy only flows from the grid to
the vehicle. In contrast, demand-side response and stationary storage is a bidirectional solution because the
energy flows from the electric vehicles’ batteries to the grid.
17
http://www.zf.com/corporate/en_de/press/list/release/release_29152.html

On the one hand, through smart-charging, EV charging demand can be shifted from peak to off-peak periods
(low system demand) in accordance to the vehicle owner’s needs. This will reduce the potential impact that
EVs would have on electricity systems, with no need for additional generation capacity.
On the other hand, demand-side response and stationary storage are comprehended in the so-called vehicle-
to-grid system (V2G) concept. Through this system, plug-in electric vehicles communicate with the power grid
to provide ancillary services through their electricity storage capacity.
“Vehicle-to-Grid is the technology that enables electricity storing during off-peak hours and electricity
recovering from electric vehicle batteries into the network during peak hours. V2G technology allows batteries
to charge during off-peak hours, when kWh is cheaper, and selling it to the network during peak hours, when
the kWh is more expensive”18
. These processes, also known as valley filling and peak shaving, enable actors
to provide ancillary services and spinning reserves. Peak-load levelling will also be an option to buffer
renewable power sources, thus effectively stabilizing the variability of these energy sources, such as wind or
solar.
It is important to remark that EVs providing energy to the grid might affect battery lifespan, due to an increase
in recharging cycles and it will require additional equipment to enable the bidirectional energy flow.
The following graph shows the process of load levelling in a qualitative approximation. The consumption profile
is based on the daily demand of the Spanish electrical system with a current variability between peak and off-
peak of 12.500 MW. The excess of energy in off-peak hours, typically during the night, can be stored in electric
vehicle batteries which release the energy in high demand hours, shaving the two peaks. This extra energy
from batteries would reduce the generation requirements from the power mix, therefore reducing energy
consumption from peak technologies such as natural gas or coal. Furthermore, daily variation requirements
between peak and valley for the power mix would be reduced significantly (depending on the availability of
storage capacity), resulting in a better capacity utilization.
18
http://web.archive.org/web/20120703002757/http://www.evwind.es/contenidos.php?id_cont=10

Figure 38 – Load levelling scheme for electricity system (indicative)
The transition to electro-mobility has implications for all stakeholders, bringing new market opportunities and
requirements for the short and long term. As a summary of three previous sections (sale and maintenance of
vehicles and recharging services, examples of new business models and grid implications), the following table
collects the implications for major players in the EV field.

Figure 39 – Implications for major players in the EV field
4.3 Economic rationale
In this section, an analysis of the total cost of ownership for electric vehicles is going to be reviewed based on
studies carried out by The European Consumer Organization (BEUC) and The Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI). The first one is focused on the European Union while the EPRI study is based on the American
context. Even though the circumstances are quite different in the USA, it has been considered worthwhile to
include the study in this report because the quantitative analysis is more detailed.
4.3.1 TCO analysis of The European Consumer Organization (BEUC)19
The focus of this study was to explore, for the context of the European Union, the potential financial impacts
that car owners would face by using other vehicle technologies for the purpose of lowering overall CO2
emissions for the period between 2020 and 2030.
19
“Low carbon cars in the 2020s – Consumer impacts and EU policy implications”, BEUC, November 2016

The study indicates that drivers will benefit from the roll-out of low carbon technologies in transport, because
it will bring a decrease in the total cost of ownership for every type of powertrain, as it can be seen in the
following graph.
Figure 40 – Expected evolution for a 4-year TCO across technologies
The previous figure shows how the 4-year TCO of all powertrains is foreseen to decrease between 2020 and
2030. Since all technologies, both ICEs and electric cars, are expected to be more efficient, fuel savings will
be the main driver of this reduction in the TCO. Furthermore, from 2024 onwards, BEV will have the lowest 4
year-TCO.
The study has also analysed the TCO over the entire useful life for vehicles purchased in 2020 and, as can be
seen in the following table, electric cars will be the cheapest by then.
Figure 41 – TCO for a car purchased in 2020 over its entire lifetime
To give a deeper insight in the differences between petrol based and electric vehicles, the study analysed two
cars in the most popular vehicle segment (segment C). According to the results shown in the following graph,
electric cars are likely to become affordable for the mass market between 2020 and 2030.

Figure 42 – Comparison between the 4-year TCO of a petrol and electric car
The current TCO difference between a BEV and a Petrol ICE can largely be accounted for by the high battery
cost. However, this gap will narrow in the future as battery prices decrease. By 2030, the gap should be
reduced to 0,5%, representing around EUR 100. As indicated in the figure, in the case of ICEs not being
improved further, by 2020 EVs would become cheaper in terms of TCO, due to fuel savings.
The study also indicates that, as cars become more efficient, the energy cost component of the TCO will
decrease, protecting drivers from energy price volatility (oil and electricity).
4.3.2 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) TCO analysis
This second analysis focuses on two BEV models, the Nissan Leaf and Chevrolet Volt, comparing them with
a set of current conventional and HEV vehicles.
The study has been completed in an American context. The results are not directly applicable to Europe,
mainly because of the significant differences in gasoline price between the two markets. However, the analysis
will be useful as a guideline for a similar analysis for Europe. A detailed case study for Spain is analysed in
the chapter on case studies (6).
Electric vehicles typically have a higher upfront cost than conventional ICEs but have lower operating
expenses. The analysis of this tradeoff will allow to find the cost effectiveness of EVs and what factors will
have a higher impact on EV’s adoption.
The general assumptions for the study are summarized in the following paragraph and table:

“All vehicle prices are based on either model year (MY) or 2013 Manufacturer Suggested Retail Price (MSRP)
for zip code 94304 (Palo Alto, CA). All vehicle pricing includes a 7,2% sales tax, and tax credits and installation
costs for the Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) as appropriate. The Nissan LEAF and Chevrolet Volt
benefit from a USD 7.500 federal tax credit, assumed to be taken at the time of purchase. For the Nissan LEAF
a cost of USD 1.500 is added at the time of purchase for the assumed installation of a Level 2 EVSE. The
Chevrolet Volt is assumed to charge at Level 1, so no EVSE cost is applied”.20
Figure 43 – Selected assumptions for the analysis
Figure 44 – Data for selected types of vehicle included in EPRI study
The EPRI study takes into account maintenance costs. Maintenance costs are the costs for regular services
required to ensure the continued reliable operation of a vehicle, such as oil changes and inspections. Repair
costs are not included since they happen unexpectedly due to a failure in a vehicle component. Additionally, a
20
“Total Cost of Ownership Model for Current Plug-in Electric Vehicles”, 2013 Technical Report, EPRI

replacement cost has been considered for the Nissan LEAF21
. It includes the total amount of gasoline used by
an alternative vehicle on replacement days, assuming a fuel economy of 24 mpg. Nissan offers this incentive
to its electric vehicle purchasers to respond to range anxiety concerns.
“Maintenance costs are calculated using the less severe mileage-based maintenance schedule in each
vehicle’s manual and the service costs for zip code 94304 (Palo Alto, CA). Brake pad replacement and brake
fluid flush, unless otherwise performed in the maintenance schedule, is done every 40.000 miles for
conventional vehicles. Since HEVs, PHEVs and BEVs have regenerative braking and thus less wear on the
brake pads, no brake pad replacement is assumed to happen throughout the 150.000 miles’ ownership period,
but brake fluid flushes are performed every 40.000 miles”.22
In terms of annual mileage, the study focuses on vehicles that are driven between 6.000 and 14.000 miles per
year. This group represents about 45% of private drivers according to the National Household Travel Survey23
.
There are several unmolded operating costs due to a lack of data or because they have been considered
insignificant. These unmolded costs include tire replacement, insurance costs, repair costs and salvage costs.
However, current EVs have unusually long warranties for the battery packs, eliminating a potential cost of
battery replacement in case of failure. Chevrolet Volt and Nissan LEAF include a battery warranty of 8 years
or 100.000 miles.
The study assumes a cash purchase, where the customer pays the full upfront cost and then pays for operating
expenses over time. The following figure shows the cumulative expenditure over ten years for the average
results of a conventional ICE and a plug-in electric vehicle.
21
When purchasing a Nissan EV, the company lends the customer a petrol or diesel car, free of charge, for
up to 14 days per year during the first three years of ownership
22
“Total Cost of Ownership Model for Current Plug-in Electric Vehicles”, 2013 Technical Report, EPRI
23
https://www.nationalhouseholdtravelsurvey.com/

Figure 45 – Cumulative expenditure of an EV and ICE
As mentioned before, as most efficient technologies, EVs have a relatively higher upfront cost but reduced
operating expenses, which will result in savings over time. This model indicated a break-even or payback time
of around 9 years of usage for the given assumptions.
The next graph compares the four models’ total expenditures broken down into five categories:
 Purchase. Including retail price, delivery charges, sales tax, incentives and EVSE installation,
if applicable
 Maintenance. Includes cost to maintain the vehicle according to estimations based on each
vehicle’s ownership manuals
 Gasoline. Total fuel cost estimated for the entire lifetime
 Electricity. Total electricity cost estimated for the entire lifetime. It is assumed that the LEAF
charges only at home with Mode 2 charging
 Replacement. Only applicable to the Nissan LEAF and includes the consumption of gasoline
for the alternative vehicle during replacement days, assuming a fuel economy of 24 mpg

Figure 46 – TCO comparison across models
As shown, the Chevrolet Volt has the highest upfront cost which is balanced out with a substantial reduction
in gasoline expenditure. Differences in lifetime costs are small compared to HEVs and ICEs. The cost structure
for this technology makes the payback period longer, because of the relatively high down-payment. For the
Nissan LEAF the results are quite different. Its total cost is around a 25% lower than the other EV and similar
to the ICE’s, which makes the LEAF an attractive option.

4.4 Outlook
In order to meet 2020 deployment objectives for electric vehicles, substantial growth in the worldwide EV stock
is needed. This growth is also required to meet the 2030 decarbonisation and sustainability goals. The
following figure shows the stock projections for two given scenarios.
Figure 47 – Scenarios for the evolution of electric car stock to 2030
(based on decarbonization and sustainability goals)
The Paris Declaration Scenario indicates that the electric vehicle stock should grow by nearly 25% annually
between 2015 and 2030. The scenario for the global temperature increase limit of the IEA marks a slightly
more aggressive growth requirement of about 27% per year.
The International Council for Clean Transportation (ICCT) says that “generally studies that assume greater
technical advancement (e.g. in battery technology) and increased policy support (e.g. R&D, infrastructure,
regulation) find 20% to over 50% electric vehicle shares are possible in leading electric vehicle markets in the
2025-2030 timeframe. However, studies that considered lesser technical advancement and policy support
generally found that the electric vehicle market, in various countries and globally, could remain as low as 5-

10% in the 2025-2030 timeframe”24
. According to this ICCT study, the potential long-term carbon emissions
benefits from electric vehicles could reach global figures of 1.500 million tons of CO2 per year in 2050
(assuming close to 90% of new passenger vehicle sales being electric vehicles).
According to another analysis carried out by the ICCT25
, based on an average company-specific sales
scenario, the electric vehicle production will distribute across companies as indicated in the following table.
Figure 48 – Expected sales by manufacturer type
Under this scenario, global sales increase from around 530.000 vehicles in 2015 to over 4,4 million in 2023.
Medium volume companies are lagging behind the leading companies by about 5 to 7 years, and the remaining
companies show a further delay of about 5 to 7 years in terms of annual electric vehicle production.
In order to assure infrastructure deployment in line with vehicle objectives, both scenarios presented above
set a growing path for the stock of publicly accessible charging points.
24
Global climate change mitigation potential from a transition to electric vehicles, ICCT, 2015
25
“Assessment of next-generation electric vehicle technologies”, ICCT, 2016

Electric Vehicles - State of play and policy framework

Electric Vehicles - State of play and policy framework

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Semelhante a Electric Vehicles - State of play and policy framework

Semelhante a Electric Vehicles - State of play and policy framework (20)

Mais de Leonardo ENERGY

Mais de Leonardo ENERGY (20)

Último

Último (20)

Electric Vehicles - State of play and policy framework