Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Research article
First published online April 28, 2019

Implications of Modeling Range and Infrastructure Barriers to Adoption of Battery Electric Vehicles

Abstract

Compared with traditional vehicles, light-duty battery electric vehicles (BEVs) currently have price premiums and noncost limitations, such as reduced range, sparse public recharging infrastructure, and long recharge times. These additional limitations can be captured in different ways in a consumer choice model. Three approaches are implemented to noncost barrier modeling, and results are compared. A penalty approach quantifies limitations as additional costs to the consumer, and two threshold approaches determine BEV suitability by the frequency that daily driving distance exceeds the vehicle range. GPS-based trip data are used to form ensemble distributions of low-, medium-, and high-intensity driving distances to support the analysis. All approaches show limited (5%) adoption of BEVs by 2050, and the BEV mileage fraction trails the stock fraction because of the use of substitute vehicles for high-mileage trips and adoption biased toward lower driving intensity segments. In fact, a majority of the electrified miles driven stem from plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, not BEVs. Of the BEVs, the powertrains offering 150- to 250-mi ranges are responsible for more than 50% of sales. Results also hint that longer-range BEVs act as primary household vehicles, but lower-range BEVs serve as secondary household vehicles. A parametric exploration shows that mechanisms to mitigate the hardship of the noncost barriers can significantly increase adoption rates but that reducing battery price alone does not. However, these mechanisms can be different for different modeling approaches.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

1. Samaras C., and Meisterling K. Life Cycle Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles: Implications for Policy. Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 42, 2008, pp. 3170–3176.
2. Eisenstein P. A. GM Slashes Chevy Volt Prices to Spur Flagging Sales. NBC News, 2013. http://www.nbcnews.com/business/autos/gm-slashes-chevy-volt-prices-spur-flagging-sales-f6C10272201.
3. Jaynes N. Heads Roll at Nissan as LEAF Sales Fail to Reach Half the Projected Goals. Digital Trends, 2013. http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/heads-roll-at-nissan-as-leaf-sales-fail-to-reach-half-the-projected-goals.
4. Stephens T. Non-Cost Barriers to Consumer Adoption of New Light-Duty Vehicle Technologies. DOE/GO-102013-3709. Transportation Energy Futures Series. Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy by Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill., 2013.
5. U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. All-Electric Vehicles: Compare Side-by-Side, 2014. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evsbs.shtml.
6. Alternative Fuels Data Center, 2014. Charging Plug-In Electric Vehicles in Public. http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_charging_public.html.
7. Sakr S. Tesla Will Open Up Its Supercharger Patents to Boost Electric Car Adoption. Engadget, 2014. http://www.engadget.com/2014/06/09/tesla-to-share-supercharger-patents/.
8. Transitions to Alternative Transportation Technologies—Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2010.
9. Bullis K. Will Fast Charging Make Electric Vehicles Practical? MIT Technology Review, 2012. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/429283/will-fast-charging-make-electric-vehicles-practical/.
10. Greene D. L. TAFV Alternative Fuels and Vehicle Choice Model Documentation. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., 2001.
11. Brownstone D., Bunch D. S., and Train K. Joint Mixed Logit Models of Stated and Revealed Preferences for Alternative-Fuel Vehicles. Transportation Research B, Vol. 34, No. 5, 2000, pp. 315–338.
12. Lin Z., and Greene D. L. Promoting the Market for Plug-In Hybrid and Battery Electric Vehicles: Role of Recharge Availability. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2252, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 49–56.
13. Pearre N. S., Kempton W., Guensler R. L., and Elango V. V. Electric Vehicles: How Much Range Is Required for a Day's Driving? Transportation Research C, Vol. 19, No. 6, 2011, pp. 1171–1184.
14. Peterson M. B., Barter G. E., West T. H., and Manley D. K. A Parametric Study of Light-Duty Natural Gas Vehicle Competitiveness in the United States Through 2050. Applied Energy, Vol. 125, 2014, pp. 206–217.
15. Barter G. E., Reichmuth D., West T. H., and Manley D. K. The Future Adoption and Benefit of Electric Vehicles: A Parametric Assessment. SAE International Journal of Alternative Powertrains, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2013, pp. 82–95.
16. Barter G. E., Reichmuth D., Westbrook J., Malczynski L. A., West T. H., Manley D. K., Guzman K. D., and Edwards D. M. Parametric Analysis of Technology and Policy Tradeoffs for Conventional and Electric Light-Duty Vehicles. Energy Policy, Vol. 46, 2012, pp. 473–488.
17. Greene D. L., and Lin Z. Who Will More Likely Buy PHEV: A Detailed Market Segmentation Analysis. Proc., 25th World Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition, Shenzhen, China, Nov. 5–9, 2010.
18. Tamor M. A., Gearhart C., and Soto C. A Statistical Approach to Estimating Acceptance of Electric Vehicles and Electrification of Personal Transportation. Transportation Research C, Vol. 26, 2013, pp. 125–134.
19. Tamor M.A., Moraal P. E., Reprogle B., and Milačić M. Rapid Estimation of Electric Vehicle Acceptance Using a General Description of Driving Patterns. Transportation Research C, Vol. 51, 2015, pp. 136–148.
20. Kurani K. S., Turrentine T., and Sperling D. Testing Electric Vehicle Demand in “Hybrid Households” Using a Reflexive Survey. Transportation Research D, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1996, pp. 131–150.
21. Sperling D., and Kitamura R. Refueling and New Fuels: An Exploratory Analysis. Transportation Research A, Vol. 20, No. 1, 1986, pp. 15–23.
22. Calfee J. E. Estimating the Demand for Electric Automobiles Using Fully Disaggregated Probabilistic Choice Analysis. Transportation Research B, Vol. 19, No. 4, 1985, pp. 287–301.
23. Yeh S. An Empirical Analysis on the Adoption of Alternative Fuel Vehicles: The Case of Natural Gas Vehicles. Energy Policy, Vol. 35, No. 11, 2007, pp. 5865–5875.
24. Golob T. F., Kim S., and Ren W. How Households Use Different Types of Vehicles: A Structural Driver Allocation and Usage Model. Transportation Research A, Vol. 30, No. 2, 1996, pp. 103–118.
25. Annual Energy Outlook 2012: With Projections to 2035. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, 2012.
26. Moawad A., Sharer P., and Rousseau A. Light-Duty Vehicle Fuel Consumption Displacement Potential up to 2045. Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Ill., 2011.
27. Hirsch J., Tesla Is Now Most Important Automaker in World, Morgan Stanley Says. Los Angeles Times, 2014. http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-tesla-most-important-automaker-20140620-story.html.
28. Ewing J. With i3 Electric Car, BMW Tries to Ease Range Anxiety. New York Times, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/16/business/with-i3-electric-car-bmw-tries-to-ease-range-anxiety.html.

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article

OR

Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options

Share

Share this article

Share with email
EMAIL ARTICLE LINK
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the Sage Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions

Information

Published In

Article first published online: April 28, 2019
Issue published: January 2015

Rights and permissions

© 2015 National Academy of Sciences.
Request permissions for this article.

Authors

Affiliations

Garrett E. Barter
Sandia National Laboratories, P.O. Box 969, Livermore, CA 94551.
Michael A. Tamor
Ford Motor Company, 2101 Village Road, MD-1170, Dearborn, MI 48121.
Dawn K. Manley
Sandia National Laboratories, P.O. Box 969, Livermore, CA 94551.
Todd H. West
Sandia National Laboratories, P.O. Box 969, Livermore, CA 94551.

Notes

Metrics and citations

Metrics

Journals metrics

This article was published in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.

VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICS

Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 133

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016


Altmetric

See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores



Articles citing this one

Receive email alerts when this article is cited

Web of Science: 0

Crossref: 12

  1. Adopting a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach to Identify Barrier...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  2. A joint machine learning and optimization approach for incremental exp...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  3. Examining Factors Affecting the Willingness of Rickshaw Operators to A...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  4. Mathematical modelling of electric vehicle adoption: A systematic lite...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  5. Government is trying but consumers are not buying: A barrier analysis ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  6. Forecasting the value of battery electric vehicles compared to interna...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  7. Examining the case for long-range battery electric vehicles with a gen...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  8. Impact of convenient away-from-home charging infrastructure
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  9. Impact of public electric vehicle charging infrastructure
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  10. Electric vehicle park-charge-ride programs: A planning framework and c...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  11. Are multi-car households better suited for battery electric vehicles? ...
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar
  12. Electric vehicles in multi-vehicle households
    Go to citation Crossref Google Scholar

Figures and tables

Figures & Media

Tables

View Options

Get access

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:


Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

View options

PDF/ePub

View PDF/ePub