Site Loader
Rock Street, San Francisco

Table
29. Comparison of number of
BEVs, PHEVs, and FCVs in different countries/jurisdictions

Country

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

BEV stock

PHEV stock

FCV stock

Japan

86,390 (2016)

64,860 (2016)

1800 (March 2017)

South Korea

10,770 (2016)

440 (2016)

100 (2016)

China

483,190 (2016)

165,580 (2016)

60 (March 2017)

Germany

40,920 (2016)

31,810 (2016)

477 (2017)

France

66,970 (2016)

17,030 (2016)

130 (November 2016)

United Kingdom

31,460 (2016)

54,960 (2016)

28 (Toyota Mirais sold
until March 2017)

Norway

98,880 (2016)

34,380 (2016)

80 (October 2017)

Denmark

8100 (BEVs and PHEVs)

68 (September 2017)

Sweden

8030(2016)

21,290 (2016)

8 (May 2016)

California

139,600 (2016)

128,863 (2016)

1600 (April 2017)

 

Numerous
reasons contribute to the higher number of BEVs and PHEVs compared to FCVs. There are more models of BEVs and PHEVs available
for purchase. Governments have longer incentivized purchase of BEVs and PHEVs
compared to FCVs. BEVs and PHEVs have also generally lower prices compared to
FCVs. As there are more subsidies for BEV purchases all over the world compared
to FCVs, BEV manufacturers have bigger markets for mass production of their
vehicles. BEVs and PHEVs also have better consumer acceptability compared to
FCV because of the concerns about the hydrogen stored in a FCV. BEVs and PHEVs
also don’t need extensive refueling infrastructure at the first stages of
deployment like FCVs and BEV and PHEV owners can charge their vehicles at home.

Out of the 10 countries/jurisdictions investigated
in this work, six of them provide higher purchase subsidy for FCVs compared to
BEVs and PHEVs. These countries and jurisdictions are: Japan, South Korea,
China, Denmark, Norway, and California. In four of the countries/jurisdictions
investigated in this work, purchase subsidies are allocated based on GHG a
vehicle emits. Since BEVs and FCVs emit no GHG emission while being driven,
they receive the same amount of purchase subsidy in the UK, Germany, France,
and Sweden. 

Based on the
purchase subsidy values, it seems that generally European countries (except for
Scandinavian countries Denmark and Norway) tend to support EVs based on their
emissions. Using this method, BEVs and FCVs will receive the same purchase
subsidies.  However, Denmark and Norway
alongside state of California and all three eastern Asia countries considered
in this work provide higher purchase subsidies for FCVs compared to purchase
subsidies for BEVs.

Although some
researches such as Zhang et al. 10
believe that designing incentives based on amount of CO2 emissions
is a good approach, it should be noted that this method of incentivizing is
greatly in favor of BEVs and against FCVs. This is because of the price
difference between BEVs and FCVs. Table
30
shows the price of selected electric vehicles. As it can be seen in the table,
BEVs are comparable to PHEVs while FCVs are generally more expensive than both
BEVs and PHEVs (All three types of vehicles include a price range for instance
EVs may range from 30,000 to 41000 US$ while PHEVS may range from 33,000 to
48,000 US$) while they provide options such as long driving ranges and can be
used for long-distance travels (with the condition of availability of enough
HRSs).

Table 30. Price of selected EVs (FCV, BEV and PHEV)

Car model

Technology

Range (miles)

MSRP1
(USD)

Reference

2017 Toyota Mirai

FCV

312

57,500

80

2017 Nissan Leaf

BEV

107

30,680 – 36,790

81

2017 Kia Soul EV

BEV

93

32,250 – 35,950

81

2017 Chevrolet Bolt EV

BEV

238

36,620 – 40,905

81

2017 Ford Fusion Energi

PHEV

21 (all electric)

33,120 – 41,120

81

2017 BMW i3 REX (94 Amp-hour battery)

PHEV

97 (all electric)

48,300

81

 

The reasons
such as lower prices and less need for extensive charging infrastructure has led
to BEVs and PHEVs to be lower hanging fruits for governments to incentivize
compared to FCVs. The introduction of FCVs
is also more complex than BEVs and PHEVs not only because of aforementioned
reasons but also because of its use of a new energy carrier which not only
needs specific technology for production but also needs specific technology for
storage and new infrastructure for distribution. BEVs are fueled with
electricity which has had established generation, transmission and distribution
infrastructure for many years.

Some countries that provide more
subsidy to FCVs are considering FCVs and hydrogen mobility as a piece of the
big picture of widespread use of hydrogen in a country/jurisdiction’s energy
system.

For instance,
Japan not only has targets for number of FCVs on the road and number of HRSs
developed, but also has target numbers for number of stationary FC for
residential application. Japan has the target of installing 1.4 million and 5.3
million small stationary fuel-cells (<5kW) by 2020 and 2030, respectively 76. In other words, the incentives for use of hydrogen in mobility is a part of a bigger picture which aims the widespread diffusion of hydrogen in Japan's energy system. In South Korea, hydrogen fuel cell was chosen as one of the four promising renewable energy technologies alongside with solar, wind and biofuel. South Korea is advancing research for increasing the efficiency of fuel-cells for residential applications 77. South Korea also has a 1190 MW target for stationary FCs by 2029 78. Norway, Sweden, and Denmark having a goal of full decarburization by 2050 62, have partnered to form Scandinavian Hydrogen Highway Partnership, SHHP, since 2006. The aim of this partnership is deployment of FCVs and development of HRS infrastructure to form one of the first regions in the world with hydrogen availability through a network of HRSs. This partnership connects industries, research institutions and local and national government findings from these three countries 79. 1

Post Author: admin

x

Hi!
I'm Dora!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out