Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 414430

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

A review of Battery Electric Vehicle technology and readiness levels MARK

a,b, a c
Amin Mahmoudzadeh Andwari , Apostolos Pesiridis , Srithar Rajoo , Ricardo Martinez-
Botasd, Vahid Esfahanianb
a
Centre for Advanced Powertrain and Fuels Research (CAPF), Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, Brunel University London, UB8
3PH, UK
b
Vehicle, Fuel and Environment Research Institute (VFERI), School of Mechanical Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Iran
c
UTM Centre for Low Carbon Transport in Cooperation with Imperial College London (LOCARTIC), Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Johor, Malaysia
d
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Imperial College London, London SW7 2AZ, UK

A R T I C L E I N F O A BS T RAC T

Keywords: As concerns of oil depletion and security of supply remain as severe as ever, and faced with the consequences of
Battery Electric Vehicles climate change due to greenhouse gas emissions, Europe is increasingly looking at alternatives to traditional
Fuel cell hybrid electric vehicle road transport technologies. Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) are seen as a promising technology, which could
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle lead to the decarbonisation of the Light Duty Vehicle eet and to independence from oil. However it still has to
Policy options
overcome some signicant barriers to gain social acceptance and obtain appreciable market penetration. This
Greenhouse gas
Life Cycle Assessment
review evaluates the technological readiness of the dierent elements of BEV technology and highlights those
technological areas where important progress is expected. Techno-economic issues linked with the development
of BEVs are investigated. Current BEVs in the market need to be more competitive than other low carbon
vehicles, a requirement which stimulates the necessity for new business models. Finally, the all-important role
of politics in this development is, also, discussed. As the benet of BEVs can help countries meet their
environmental targets, governments have included them in their roadmaps and have developed incentives to
help them penetrate the market.

1. Introduction number of passengers has been forecasted [1214], total independence

Road based transportation accounts for a large share of Europe CO2
emissions, 22% in the UK [1,2]. A growing concern about climate
change triggered agreements between EU countries to cut their
emissions by 80% by 2050 to stabilise atmospheric CO2 at 450 ppm
in order to keep global warming under 2 C. The eort is shared
between dierent sectors, and the road transport sector is expected to
reduce its emissions by 95% [36]. Moreover, it is highly dependent on
oil, which raises resource depletion and security of supply concerns.
Lastly, urban pollution due to vehicle use causes health problems. This
is why it is considered as crucial to develop low carbon and oil
independent transport solutions [711]. Improvements in eciency
of current vehicles, biofuels and electric powertrains are three solutions
being considered to tackle this issue. However as an increase in the
on oil and zero tailpipe emissions technologies will probably be needed
in the long term [1518].
Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) satisfy these two conditions. Their
principle is simple: an electric motor powered by a battery replaces the
Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle (ICEV) and the tank, and the
vehicle is plugged to a charging spot when it is not in use [1921]. They
have many advantages: they are highly ecient, do not produce
tailpipe emissions which is benecial for local air quality, they have
good acceleration, can be charged overnight on low cost electricity
produced by any type of power station, including renewables [2123].
However despite these advantages, BEVs, also, face signicant chal-
lenges. Electricity storage is still expensive and the charging of the
battery is time consuming; this is why the range of these vehicles is
limited. A charging spot infrastructure must be in place before any

Abbreviations and acronyms: AC, Alternating Current; BEV, Battery Electric Vehicle; BMS, Battery Management System; CO2, Carbon Dioxide; DC, Direct Current; DECC,
Department of Energy and Climate Change; EPA, Environmental Protection Agency; EU, European Union; EV, Electric Vehicle; FCEV, Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle; FCHEV, Fuel Cell
Hybrid Electric Vehicle; FCV, Fuel Cell Vehicle; GHG, Greenhouse Gas; ICE, Internal Combustion Engine; ICEV, Internal Combustion Electric Vehicle; IEA, International Energy
Agency; kWh, kilowatt hour; LCA, Life Cycle Assessment; LDV, Light Duty Vehicle; Li-Ion, Lithium-ion; LPG, Liqueed Petroleum Gas; Na/NiCl2, Sodium Nickel Chloride; Ni-MH,
Nickel Metal Hydride; NOx, Nitric Oxide; PHEV, Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle; PM, Permanent Magnet; ppm, part per million; SOx, Sulphur Oxide; USABC, United States Advanced
Battery Consortium; USD, United States Dollar; VAT, Value-Added Tax; V2G, Vehicle to Grid

Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Amin.Mahmoudzadehandwari@brunel.ac.uk (A. Mahmoudzadeh Andwari).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.138
Received 29 October 2015; Received in revised form 17 February 2017; Accepted 21 March 2017
1364-0321/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Mahmoudzadeh Andwari et al.
Fig. 1. Specic energy and power of the main battery technologies.
market penetration, and the corresponding investment is important. In
addition, primary resource depletion concerns have been raised for
some elements of the battery. The impact of BEVs on the grid could be
damaging [24]. However, the most dicult issue is the social accep-
tance of these vehicles, which is the nal great hurdle before BEVs can
penetrate the market to any signicant extent. Their high capital cost is
a barrier for consumers and their low running cost has low visibility.
The range anxiety is probably the most important barrier: as the range
is lower than for conventional vehicles, and charging takes time,
consumers fear that they will not be able to complete their journey.
This problem is exacerbated by the insucient charging infrastructure
[2527]. However, most governments roadmaps plan an important
role for BEVs as they have a high potential for technological improve-
ment. Moreover, new business models have been developed to com-
pensate some of their disadvantages and policies have been imple-
mented to support their development [28].
This review study aims to analyse the barriers for market penetra-
tion of BEVs, including social acceptance, and the solutions, which
have been developed from the point of view of existing literature.
Moreover the technological readiness of dierent components of BEVs
is analysed along with their targets and their potential for development.
In the meanwhile, the techno-economic issues linked with the devel-
opment of BEVs and the business models, which have been designed as
a solution to those problems, are presented and discussed. Lastly, the
role of BEVs in the political roadmap-shaping is discussed which have
already been taken or that can further be taken to support the increase
of their market penetration.
2. Methodology
In this study through a previous literature review the barriers of
market penetration of BEVs, including social acceptance, and the
solutions, which have been developed are analysed. As the situation
has evolved quickly in the last decade, it focused mainly on the
publications of the past ve years. It rst analysed the technological
readiness of the dierent components of BEVs, their targets and their
potential for development. Secondly it studied the techno-economic
issues linked with the development of BEVs and the business models,
which have been designed as a solution to those problems. Finally, it
determined the role of BEVs in governments targets and the measures,
which have been or could be taken to support their penetration. In this
work, a program is designed including three main goals, closely
interlinked. The rst one is to display the study of the technological
and cost readiness levels of BEV components (based on the literature
review), which are detailed in Section 3. The second one is to assess
415
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 414430
possible evolutions of this readiness up to 2050: a timeline and an
evolution are added to the previous work; the assumptions necessary to
build this projection are available in Section 4. The last goal is an
assessment of the satisfaction of customers needs and requirements in
term of range, from a technological perspective.
3. Technological readiness of the components of BEV
3.1. Batteries
The technological readiness of batteries, the energy storage system
of a BEV, is a crucial problem in the development and market
penetration of BEVs. As the key component it is presented rst in this
section.
3.1.1. Key Requirements of the battery system
The key parameters for a comparison of batteries are the energy
density, the power density, the cycle life, calendar life, and the cost per
kWh [29]. Volume and safety are also mentioned. To a lesser extent,
energy eciency and self-discharge are also considered. Each technol-
ogy and each battery is designed following a trade-o between energy
and power density [30,31]. For BEVs the battery is generally sized by
the energy requirements to allow a certain range to be reached [32].
It must be noted that the relationship between car range and
battery capacity is not linear as the important additional weight of the
battery (between 150 and 500 kg for a range of about 150 km) reduces
the eciency on the road. This is why it is important to compare
batteries according to their energy and power densities.
Fig. 1 illustrates the range of specic power and specic energy for
dierent battery technologies [33]. It can be noted that they dier
greatly from one technology to another and that for a given technology
the design allows for additional trade-os between power and energy.
United States Advanced Battery Consortium (USABC) has set a specic
power goal of 150 kW/kg to allow long term commercialisation of
BEVs, and a long term goal of 200 kW/kg [30]. It can be seen on the
graph that the technology was still far of this goal in 2020.
The price of the battery represents an important share of the total
cost of BEVs, which is why it is crucial to reduce it. The USABC
evaluated the maximum price compatible with an important market
share of BEVs was USD 150/kWh (with a long term goal of USD 100/
kWh) [29]. International Energy Agency (IEA) estimated that in order
for BEV to be competitive the battery prices would have to be under
USD 300/kWh [34,35]. Fig. 2 shows the result of a price assumption
for Li-ion batteries up to 2030 [3638]. Technological improvements
and breakthroughs are expected in this analysis, resulting in an
A. Mahmoudzadeh Andwari et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 414430

Fig. 2. A McKinsey analysis of Lithium-ion battery cost evolution, assuming learning eects and technology breakthroughs.

important price reduction by 2020 with a battery price below $500/
kWh. However, this price is still much higher than the objectives of the
USABC and IEA and too high for a quick introduction of BEVs in the
market.
Finally, the cycle and calendar lives are important parameters in the
choice of the battery. If they are inferior to the life of the vehicle, and
the battery has to be changed after a few years, the cost of ownership of
the vehicle increases greatly. The USABC aims at a 10 year, 1000 cycles
(with a 80% depth of discharge) life. It depends greatly on how the
battery is used (e.g. rate of discharge, charge and temperature of
operation). The Battery Management System, which is studied in
section 2.2, is crucial to improving the lifespan but also the safety of
the battery [29].
3.1.2. Principal battery technologies
3.1.2.1. Lead acid battery. As seen in Fig. 1, this technology has low
specic energy, typically between 20 and 40 Wh/kg [39]. A range of
200 km would necessitate about 150 kg of Lithium-ion batteries but
more than 500 kg of lead acid cells [40]. Also, its cycle and calendar life
is short compared to other technologies such as Nickel Metal Hydride
[30]. Moreover, it is a mature and well known technology and the
potential for its improvement it is low. This is why it is not being
considered for use in future BEVs. However, its low cost (about USD
100/kWh) makes it appropriate for use with low performance, small
range neighbourhood vehicles [29].
3.1.2.2. Nickel Metal Hydride battery (Ni-MH). This technology has
been recently used in Hybrid Vehicles (such as Toyota Prius for
instance). The costs were around USD 700800/kWh [29] and,
therefore, less expensive than Li-ion batteries. Ni-MH battery
technology is considered a mature technology, however, which has
reached its best potential, both in cost reduction and characteristics. As
seen in Fig. 1, its energy density is between 60 and 80 Wh/kg [41] and
it is considered as insucient for the needs of BEVs.
USD 700/kWh, Fig. 2), it presents safety issues (overcharging can
cause res and destruction) [49,50] and the energy density is still
insucient to satisfy the needs of the market. In addition, material
availability concerns have been raised [5154].
There is a large variety of Lithium-ion chemistries, with dierent
characteristics and degrees of maturity. They are compared in Table 1.
More generally, the state-of-the-art of Lithium batteries, as well as the
short and long-term possible evolutions, are discussed in detail in
[44,55,56].
3.1.2.4. Sodium Nickel Chloride (Na/NiCl2, Zebra) battery. This
technology has many advantages. It is considered as safe and low
cost (one third of the price of Li-ion batteries), with a long cycle life
(superior to 1000 cycles) and can be discharged almost completely
without degrading its life expectancy. However, despite a satisfying
specic energy, comparable to Li-ions (about 120 Wh/kg), its specic
power is much lower, 150W/kg. Because of this, it is not considered to
power BEVs on its own; however it could be used in association with
power sources such as supercapacitors [57].
3.1.3. Prospects
The above list of battery technologies is far from being exhaustive.
Others have or are being considered. Large investments are allocated
by governments to fund research in this area, for instance in Europe,
Japan and the USA, and many dierent alternatives are studied
[44,5860]. In the short term, the use of numerous new materials
has been considered [33,6163], as well as design improvements. In
the long term, other possibilities such as lithium sulphur, organic
materials or nanostructures are being considered [42,6466]. For
instance, the prospects of Lithium air battery have been studied [67
Table 1
Comparison of different Lithium-ion battery technologies [21,23,32].
Technology Advantages Disadvantages

Lithium Cobalt Oxide Power and energy density Safety, cost

3.1.2.3. Lithium-ion batteries (Li-Ion). This technology is considered (LiCoO2)
Nickel Cobalt and Power and energy density, Safety
as the most promising for the near future by a majority of literary Aluminium (NCA) calendar and cycle life
sources. This is why in most of the reports the Lithium-ion technology Nickel Manganese Power and energy density, Safety
is the only one studied in detail [14,18,19] among others. It has high Cobalt (NMC) Cycle and calendar life
energy density, because lithium possesses both the highest Lithium Polymer Power density Calendar life
(LiMnO4)
electrochemical potential and a low equivalent mass [43]. It has high
Lithium ion phosphate Safety Energy density, calendar
eciency and a long lifespan [44,45] and its potential to improve is (LiFePO4) life
considered as very high [4648]. However it is expensive (more than

416
A. Mahmoudzadeh Andwari et al.
Fig. 3. Battery block principles.
69] with the conclusion that it is a potentially promising technology for
the long term. It could allow batteries to catch up with the energy
density of gasoline and oer high range (ideally in the order of 800 km)
that Lithium-ion technology seems unlikely to reach.
No matter the technology, improvements in battery cost and
lifespan could also come from better battery management systems.
3.2. Battery management systems
Battery management systems (BMS) have two main roles: the rst
one is to monitor the battery to determine information such as its State
of Charge, State of Health (the ability of the battery to deliver its
specied output) and Remaining Useful Life. These parameters are
crucial for users as well as to optimize the charge and discharge
processes and must be communicated to on-board systems (safety
system, communication with the driver, engine management) [70].
Dierent modelling methods have been proposed in the literature [71
76].
The second role is to operate the battery in a safe, ecient and non-
damaging way. As can be seen Fig. 3, battery blocks are composed of
cells arranged in parallel and series to meet the needs of the engine
[77]. As those cell characteristics can dier slightly, it is necessary to
balance the charge between each cell to prevent damage and improve
the lifetime of the stack. Passive balancing methods have been used,
during charge, using dissipation through resistors, but it is not an
ecient solution. Second generation batteries will probably rely on
active cell balancing, one method being presented in [78,79]. It
involves voltage and current monitoring in each cell, and temperature
monitoring in multiple points to ensure that none of the cell is
functioning outside its operational conditions. The benets oered
are a longer calendar and cycle life, increased safety and a higher power
capability for a relatively small cost increase. It is particularly
important for Lithium-ion technologies since, despite their promises,
they can be damaged and present a risk of re or explosion if they are
managed incorrectly [29,80], and their high cost makes even more
crucial an increase in their cycle and calendar lives.
In order to meet these goals, mathematical models of the behaviour
of each battery technology have been elaborated [81]. It has been
proposed models that take into account the change in capacity and
impedance of batteries during their lifetime (decreasing the available
power), the model allowing for the monitoring and prediction of
degradation, and the development of advanced charging algorithms
to maximize the battery life [8284]. These, however, necessitate from
cell manufacturers a high level of consistency in their products [85].
It is believed that advanced BMS can signicantly improve the
eciency of BEVs [86] and extend the life of batteries [87]. As these
two parameters are crucial for both range and life cycle cost of BEVs,
improvements in this technology could mitigate the current social
acceptance diculties [88].
3.3. Electric motors
Electric motors have many advantages over internal combustion
engines [30]. The eciency of the conversion from electrical to
417
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 414430
mechanical energy is high at between 70% and 95% [89]. They have
high torque and power density and better torque characteristics at low
speed. Moreover, it is possible to use electric motors as generators
during braking to recover energy. The drivers appreciate the fact that
they are quiet and oer a rapid and smooth acceleration. Furthermore,
electric motors are robust and reliable with reasonable cost [90].
However, their eciency varies with torque and speed, being higher at
high torque and low speed. Power electronics, needed to adapt the
voltage of the battery to maximize the eciency of the motor, will be
studied in the next paragraph.
Dierent types of electric motors exist. DC motors used to be
considered as the most suitable technology for EVs. They are the least
complicated and the least expensive due to their simple control
electronics. However they require regular maintenance due to the
presence of commutators and brushes, which are in contact and are
prone to wear down. This feature makes the technology unsuitable for
widespread adoption of BEVs.
AC motors are less expensive, however they require complicated
and costly power electronics, including an inverter as the power source
- the batteries - provide DC current [91]. The overall cost of AC motors
is higher. Their advantages are a higher power density, which is very
important in an automotive application as it allows use of a smaller and
lighter motors, and higher eciency, which maximizes the range for a
given battery capacity.
Three main types of AC motors are typically considered for BEV
use: induction, switched reluctance and permanent magnet (PM)
brushless motor [90]. Induction motors are low cost, reliable, and free
from maintenance compared to DC motors. A specic control system is
necessary, but many improvements have been made in recent years.
Switched reluctance motors are considered to have high potential.
Their construction is simple, their manufacturing cost low, and their
torque-speed characteristic are an interesting case in connection to
BEV use. However, their control and design is dicult, and acoustic
noise problems are still in need to be resolved. Finally, with the
improvement of permanent magnet materials, PM motors have, also,
become very attractive. They oer high eciency, high power density
and reliability. However, their cost remains high due to the permanent
magnetic materials. It is currently seen as the best technology for small
and moderate power needs, between 25 and 150 kW, which corre-
sponds to the needs of Light Duty Vehicles (LDVs) [29]. For instance, a
47 kW PM motor has been chosen by Mitsubishi for the i-MiEV
[90,92]. It includes the topology of the motor but also the drive
operation and control strategies, as these issues are crucial to max-
imising its eciency.
Even if electric motors are a tried and tested technology, their
application in the automotive powertrain application area brings new
constraints with respect to weight, robustness and reliability. Future
possible improvements of current electric motors include a reduction in
the cost of high temperature permanent magnets, the development of
controllers for safer operation of subsystems, and a decrease in the
number of sensors in the motor [93].
3.4. Power electronics
This important component of BEVs is less well covered in literature
on Electric Vehicles (EVs). However, they represent an important share
of the total cost of the vehicle, almost as important as the battery on a
kWe basis [40]. This area has a high potential for cost reduction.
As it has been discussed previously, power electronics are the
intermediate between the battery, a DC current source, and the AC
motor. It is composed of a DC/AC inverter, which controls the voltage
fed to the engine through switching devices. Control algorithms specic
to each type of motor ensure that it operates at highest eciency. The
eciency of power electronics is typically between 95% and 98% [29].
In the past decade, the performances of semiconductor switching
devices have signicantly improved in cost and reliability [30].
A. Mahmoudzadeh Andwari et al.
Magnetic components and capacitors have progressed as well, so that
they can be used in high frequency power electronics. However, many
improvements still need to be made; these are described in [93,94].
The components such as diodes and switches need to resist to both high
temperature and high levels of vibrations. Capacitors need to be
improved, and dielectric materials investigated. Inverters must be
simplied and, ideally, integrate electromagnetic interference lters
as well as being fault tolerant. The main challenge remains the
conguring of a higher resistance to heat or better cooling systems
and the reduction of the volume of the devices so that they can be more
suitable for the automotive industry [95].
3.5. Weight and aerodynamics
Even if this issue is not specic to BEV, improving the aerodynamic
eciency of the vehicle and reducing its weight is crucial for electric
vehicles in order to maximize their range within a given battery. As it is
explained in the Grantham Institute for Climate Change Brieng paper
No 2 on Road transport technology and climate change mitigation [96],
it can be done by weight reduction, through aerodynamic improve-
ments or rolling resistance reduction. The size of the vehicle and of the
engine will have to continue being reduced. Materials can be changed
with steel being replaced by aluminium, plastic and composites for
example. However, the additional cost is potentially very high, and it
raises safety issues. The car must be designed accordingly to minimise
weight. Low resistance tyres and pressure monitoring systems are, also,
in need of implementation [9799].
3.6. Range extender
The main weakness of BEVs is their low range. A solution to this
problem is to include a range extender power generating system, either
a small internal combustion engine associated with a generator or a
fuel cell, which can produce electricity to charge the battery when it is
needed. The principle of range extended vehicles, which are series
hybrid vehicles (with a relatively smaller engine and tank), is explained
in Fig. 4 [91].
Compared to a simple BEV, an engine and a generator (or a fuel
cell) are connected through a power converter with the battery [100].
When the energy provided by the battery is sucient to meet the needs
of the users, the engine is not in use. However, when the range
provided by the battery is insucient, the engine is turned on, and
consumes diesel or gasoline to generate mechanical energy [101]. It is
converted into electrical energy through a generator. Electricity is then
either stored, or consumed into the electric motor to power the vehicle.
On short trips the vehicle functions like a BEV; however the total range
of the vehicle is much higher. The range extender allows for a lower
battery capacity, which requires a compromise in the design. If battery
capacity is over-specied the initial cost for the consumer is too high
and the weight of the vehicle is greater. On the contrary, an undersized
battery would increase the duration of use of the ICE, and the users
loose the benets of pure electric propulsion, whereas the eciency of
the internal combustion engine is lower than a normal Internal
Combustion Electric Vehicle (ICEV) because of additional energy
Fig. 4. Principle of ICE series hybrid vehicles.
418
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 414430
conversions. The Chevrolet Volt is an example of an electric vehicle
with a range extender [102]. Some of its characteristics are displayed in
Table 2, alongside a BEV without range extender as a comparison. It
can be noticed that the Volt has a much higher total range even if its
battery capacity is 27% lower.
Even if the technical readiness of Fuel Cell Hybrid Electric Vehicles
(FCHEVs) is much lower compared to ICEV, this technology is
considered very promising [103]. It has been demonstrated that
FCHEVs with a downsized fuel cell as a range extender will be
economically attractive compared to BEV and Fuel Cell Electric
Vehicle (FCEV) by 2030 (and possibly compared to ICE on lifecycle
cost depending on fuel costs [104]). The optimum battery size has been
estimated at about 10kWh which would allow 80% of the mileage to be
driven by electricity and 20% by hydrogen [105]. A fuel cell range
extender has been designed and tested by Imperial Racing Green, an
undergraduate project of Imperial College, on an operational high-
powered motorsport electric vehicle [106]. A 4 kW polymer electrolyte
membrane fuel cell range extender was connected to the 7.25 kWh and
100 kW peak power battery pack. This design was specic to the
motorsport environment, where higher cost was allowable, however it
was a valid demonstration and testing of the technology [107].
Range extenders could be the solution to free BEVs from range
anxiety issues and lower the capital costs by downsizing the battery.
3.7. Supercapacitors
Supercapacitors, or ultracapacitors, have been developed since
about 1990 [30]. They are characterized by a higher power density
and a longer life cycle, but a lower energy density than batteries
[108,109]. This low energy density makes them unsuitable as the sole
power source for a BEV [110]. However, a combination of a super-
capacitor with a battery through a DC/DC converter is very promising
[111]. Decoupling the vehicles needs in energy and power is made
possible through improvements in power electronics [41]: the super-
capacitors role is not to deliver energy during a cycle but to smooth out
the energy delivered by the battery. Its higher power density increases
the eciency of regeneration, and by consequence the range, and
improves the acceleration [111]. Moreover it smoothes out the current
uctuation in the battery, reducing its temperature and so increasing
the life of the battery. It would allow the industry to focus on high
energy density batteries instead of costly compromises between power
and energy. It is much more resistant to very low temperatures [39].
J.Dixon [57] studied the association of supercapacitors with a
ZEBRA battery and concluded that this association was very promising.
This battery is three times less expensive than a Li-ion battery but is
not currently used because its power density is about three times lower.
However associated with a supercapacitor it provides excellent perfor-
mance, as well as higher simplicity and safety. Moreover it has no
scarcity of resource issues [51]. However, as a supercapacitor can store
a limited amount of energy, it causes losses in case of a long high power
requirement or regeneration such as a hill [57]. Supercapacitors are
used in the Pininfarina Bluecar [112].
A. Mahmoudzadeh Andwari et al.
Table 2
Comparison between two EVs with and without a range extender [76,103].
Model Year of release Range extender
Chevrolet Volt 2014 1.4 L ICE (gasoline)
Renault Fluence ZE 2015 N/A
3.8. Charging
The charging infrastructure is crucial for the social acceptance of
BEVs as range anxiety could be attenuated by a suitable network of
charging points. Dierent technical solutions have been developed and
these are presented below [113116].
3.8.1. Conductive charge
This type of charge is the most common and is favoured in Europe.
The vehicle is charged through a cable plugged to the electrical grid
[117]. This method is ecient, light, compact, and allows bi-directional
power ows [46]. However, safety concerns have been raised [118].
The cord between the plug and the vehicle, in public places and
garages, could prove to be a safety hazard by tripping up pedestrians or
car owners. The line carries high voltage and current: electric vehicle
supply equipment must be designed to stop the power ow if the cord
connector is not plugged properly.
There are three dierent standards of conductive charging [46].
Level 1 is 220 V AC in the EU and 15 to 20 A (120 V AC in the US). It is
the most common solution as it corresponds to residential and
commercial voltages and do not require the installation of new
networks. It can fully charge a vehicle in 5 to 8 h. Level 2 is 220 V
AC and up to 40 A and requires a new circuit. Level 3 charge, also
called Fast Charge, could be 480 V AC and 3 phase circuit with power
between 60 and 150 kW. It requires a specic network and strict safety
measures. It aims to charge the battery in less than 10 min
The role of fast charging has been discussed in literature [29,119
121]. The battery life is usually maximised for specic rates of recharge
and could be reduced by faster rates. It must be specically designed to
withstand higher temperatures. Moreover, the discharge and spark
risks are more acute than with level 1 and 2 charging because of the
higher voltage and current involved. The charger should monitor the
battery chemistry to prevent any damage. In addition, the on-board
charger must be able to withstand fast-charging conditions, and this
incurs an increase in the cost of the vehicle. It is considered as an
optional and emergency solution for cars. This report advised imple-
menting pricing strategies that would discourage frequent uses of this
method.
Individual charging points would be needed in order to charge the
vehicle at home (Fig. 5) [122], when it is not in use, estimated the cost
at USD 878 for a level 1 charging point with on board charger and
cable, and from USD 15202146 for a level 2 spot with a dedicated
Fig. 5. Charging spots of the manufacturer Schneider Electric.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 414430
Battery Capacity Battery technology Range on electricity Total range
16 kWh Lithium-ion < 60 km > 480 km
22 kWh Lithium-ion 185 km 185 km
circuit and stationary charger (depending on the type of housing,
apartment or individual housing) [46]. However, in urban areas some
residents do not possess private parking space. Public charging spots,
in commercial areas, in workplaces or on roadsides, are, therefore,
necessary. Manufacturers such as Schneider Electric have developed
charging points which can be associated with RFID cards to allow for a
simple subscription scheme for the users [122], as can be seen in Fig. 5.
They must be installed ahead of the demand to enable market
penetration of BEVs. A restriction would fuel the range anxiety of
users: a degree of underutilisation must be tolerated. This issue is
described in [2]. The report estimates the manufacture and installation
cost of such public charging spots between 5000 and 7000. This
signicant cost implies the creation of a strong business model to
nance the infrastructure. Moreover, the charging points must be
compatible with all the vehicles in order to reduce the investment
needed.
3.8.2. Battery switching stations. Battery swapping is the quickest
charging solution. Instead of having to wait for the battery to charge, it
is directly replaced by an already fully charged one at designated
stations. This solution faces four main diculties. First, a high tension
and high energy electric connection in the car has to be physically
opened. It could provoke sparks and discharge, or at the least
degrading of the contacts [123]. Secondly, those stations necessitate
an important and expensive infrastructure to recharge, as well as to
monitor and store them as well as a signicant number of batteries
[124]. Thirdly, BEVs must be specically designed with a switchable
battery, and this is not the case for most of the recently commercialised
models. Lastly, a high level of standardization is vital. The existence on
the market of a high number of dierent and non-compatible battery
packs would force these stations to store each type of battery,
increasing the storage capacity needed and therefore the investment
[125,126].
The EASYBAT project, which had recently been approved by the
European Commission, aimed to facilitate the commercialisation of
BEVs with switchable batteries [127]. This consortium was coordinated
by Better Place and includes Continental and Renault SA, but also
research institutes, and standardization organisations. It targets the
connector interfaces of electrical and information networks, and the
interfaces to switch the battery. If this project was successful, the
development of common components and interfaces should have
allowed the design of switch stations compatible with a variety of car
models and battery types.
Better Place developed switch stations for its customers, which can
be seen in Fig. 6 [127]. The principle is simple: the car enters a lane,
and gets on a conveyor belt. The battery is removed from under the
vehicle, and replaced by a fully charged one. Batteries are recharged
and stored under the building. This solution is advertised as being
quicker than an ICEV stop at a petrol station [127].
This solution is suitable for schemes where the consumer does not
own its battery pack. It must be noted that it would be much more
complicated to implement this system otherwise.
3.8.3. Inductive chargers. Inductive Coupling Power Transfer uses
magnetic induction between specially designed transformers to
transmit energy [128]. The idea seems promising, as the
infrastructure, under the road surface, would be invisible and
419
A. Mahmoudzadeh Andwari et al.
Fig. 6. Better place battery switch station.
unobtrusive. Users would just have to stop for a while during their trip
on special parking spaces to charge the battery. The main advantage of
this method, used mainly in Japan and in the US, is its safety [46]. The
risk of tripping on a cable, or of sparks, does not exist. However, the
eciency, under 90% (and highly dependent on the position of the car
and the distance between the emitter and the battery) is lower than for
conductive charging [129]. Moreover, the electromagnetic emission
emitted by the charger might aect the electronics of the car: the
resistance of cars to such emissions may need to be improved.
Vehicles must be specially designed to use inducting charge. This
method has not been selected by carmakers in their models of BEVs
released in 2014 or 2015 Mitsubishi, Renault, Nissan, and Tesla for
instance, [92,130,131].
In order to achieve market penetration of BEVs, techno-economics
issues must be resolved in addition to the technical objectives on the
dierent components of BEVs that we studied.
4. Techno-economics of BEV
4.1. Comparison of other low emission vehicles
Dierent alternatives to BEVs exist that could both reduce green-
house gas emissions and reduce the dependency on oil in the
transportation sector. They have been described in the Grantham
Institute for Climate Change Brieng paper No 2 [96]. First of all,
ICEV eciency could be improved, and their emissions reduced. This
solution is the cheapest; however it will never be a zero-emission
technology. Biofuels are in development to reduce the dependency on
oil. Parallel hybrid vehicles, or series hybrids, are also a good
alternative to BEVs, particularly for long distance uses or for larger
cars, because they have a higher range from a smaller battery capacity,
and therefore a lower price. FCEVs are also an alternative, because of
their high eciency [132134]. As can be seen Fig. 7 [3] they are the
lowest emission solution for long trips and medium to large vehicles
[36]. However the cost of fuel cells is still very high compared to ICEs,
and the infrastructure needed is more complex than for electric
vehicles. Finally, FCHEVs with the synergy of a fuel cell, batteries
and/or supercapacitors, is yet another promising alternative for the
medium-to-long term [135].
Comparisons of dierent types of vehicles are numerous in
literature, focusing on dierent aspects of this subject. The eciency
and cost eciency of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEVs) and
BEVs are compared in [46]. The technology, infrastructure and cost of
ownership of BEVs, FCEVs and FCHEVs are compared in [40] and
[104]. Infrastructure, energy security benets, emissions, and prob-
ability of market dominance of EVs and Hydrogen vehicles are
compared in [136]. It is crucial to identify the potential of each
alternative in order to direct the expenditure of R & D on the most
420
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 414430
Fig. 7. Estimation of CO2 emissions and range of medium size vehicles of dierent
technologies in 2010 and 2050.
promising technologies. However the future car market will probably
be composed of a mix of technologies as they have complementary
roles [3]: each technology presents a dierent compromise between
emissions and range (Fig. 7).
4.2. Resource depletion of lithium
As discussed earlier Lithium batteries were expected to be the
dominant technology in BEV. However concerns have been raised
about the availability of lithium in order to satisfy the rise in demand
inherent to the development of BEV [2,66]. A rapid increase in demand
could lead to a shortage of lithium, increased market price and a
decrease in competitiveness for BEVs. The other elements of Lithium-
ion batteries are more abundant and generate less concern [137].
Fig. 8 shows the geographical repartition of known lithium re-
sources [138]. These gures are susceptible to rise in the next years as
the interest in Lithium ion batteries grows: in 2007 the same report
estimated the global known lithium resources under 14 million tons
[139]. In 2010 world reserves were estimated at 9.9 million tons of
lithium. Since 2009, exploration and claims have been numerous,
mainly in Nevada, Argentina, Bolivia and Canada, despite a reduction
in lithium demand in 2009 [138]. Europe has no big deposits [43], and
74% of known resources are in South America. It could be seen as a
geopolitical risk [51] to heavily rely on this region.
Batteries, including those for applications such as cell phones or
computers, represent 23% of the global end-use market for lithium
[138]. Ceramics and glass are the most important market, but it is also
used for lubricating greases and other markets. The competition for the
resource is not limited to the automotive industry, which increases
concerns. The total lithium required for a BEV with a range of 100
miles is between 3.38 kg and 12.68 kg depending on the type of battery
[137]; if we take into account the other end-use for lithium, 50% of the
2010 estimation of world reserves would be sucient to manufacture
between 390,000 and 1465 million of such vehicles [140].
Fig. 8. World identied lithium resources.
 Table 3
Comparison of all EVs rated by the EPA for the U.S in terms of fuel efficiency, costs, tailpipe and upstream CO2 emissions.
A. Mahmoudzadeh Andwari et al.

Vehicle Model EPA rated EPA rated City EPA rated Cost to Annual fuel Overall fuel Utility factor Tailpipe CO2 Tailpipe+total upstream
Year Combined fuel fuel economy Highway fuel drive 25 cost economy (mpg- (share EV (g/mi) CO2
economy economy miles e) miles) Low (g/ Ave (g/ High (g/
mi) mi) mi)

BMW i3 [158] 2014/16 124 mpg-e (27 kWh/ 137 mpg-e 111 mpg-e (30 kWh/ $0.81 $500 124 1 0 93 175 266
100 mi) (25 kWh/100 mi) 100 mi)
BYD e6 [159] 2015/16 63 mpg-e (54 kWh/ 61 mpg-e 65 mpg-e (52 kWh/ $1.62 $950 63 1 0 187 350 532
100 mi) (55 kWh/100 mi) 100 mi)
Chevrolet Spark EV 2015 119 mpg-e (28 kWh/ 128 mpg-e 109 mpg-e (31 kWh/ $0.84 $500 119 1 0 97 181 276
[160] 100 mi) (26 kWh/100 mi) 100 mi)
Chevrolet Volt (PHEV) 2013/15 98 mpg-e (35 kWh/ NA/35 mpg NA/40 mpg $1.05/ $2.57 $900 62 0.66 81 180 249 326
[161] 100 mi)/37 mpg
Fiat 500e [162] 2014/17 116 mpg-e (29 kWh/ 122 mpg-e 108 mpg-e (31 kWh/ $0.87 $500 116 1 0 101 189 288
100 mi) (28 kWh/100 mi) 100 mi)
Ford Focus Electric 2014/16 105 mpg-e (32 kWh/ 110 mpg-e 99 mpg-e (34 kWh/ $0.96 $600 105 1 0 111 208 316
[163] 100 mi) (31 kWh/100 mi) 100 mi)
Honda Fit EV [164] 2015 118 mpg-e (29 kWh/ 132 mpg-e 105 mpg-e (32 kWh/ $0.87 $500 118 1 0 99 185 281
100 mi) (26 kWh/100 mi) 100 mi)
Kia Soul EV [165] 2016 105 mpg-e (32 kWh/ 120 mpg-e 92 mpg-e (37 kW-h/ $0.96 $600

421
100 mi) (29 kW-h/ 100 mi)
100 mi)
Mercedes-Benz B- 2016 84 mpg-e (40 kWh/ 85 mpg-e 83 mpg-e (41 kWh/ $1.20 $700 84 1 0 138 259 394
Class Electric Drive 100 mi) (40 kWh/100 mi) 100 mi)
[166]
Mitsubishi i [167] 2014/17 112 mpg-e (30 kWh/ 126 mpg-e 99 mpg-e (34 kWh/ $0.90 $550 112 1 0 104 195 296
100 mi) (27 kWh/100 mi) 100 mi)
Nissan Leaf [168] 2015/17 114 mpg-e (30 kWh/ 126 mpg-e 101 mpg-e (33 kWh/ $0.90 $550 114 1 0 104 194 296
100 mi) (27 kWh/100 mi) 100 mi)
Smart electric drive 2016 107 mpg-e (32 kWh/ 122 mpg-e 93 mpg-e (36 kWh/ $0.96 $600 107 1 0 109 204 311
[169] 100 mi) (28 kWh/100 mi) 100 mi)
Tesla Model S 2014/17 95 mpg-e (35 kWh/ 94 mpg-e 97 mpg-e (35 kWh/ $1.05 $650 95 1 0 122 229 348
(60 kWh) [170] 100 mi) (36 kWh/100 mi) 100 mi)
Tesla Model S 2013/16 89 mpg-e (38 kWh/ 88 mpg-e 90 mpg-e (37 kWh/ $1.14 $700 89 1 0 131 246 374
(85 kWh) [171] 100 mi) (38 kWh/100 mi) 100 mi)
Toyota Prius (HEV) 2012/17 50 mpg 51 mpg 48 mpg $1.74 $1050
[172]
Toyota RAV4 EV [173] 2013/16 76 mpg-e (44 kWh/ 78 mpg-e 74 mpg-e (46 kWh/ $1.32 $850 76 1 0 153 287 436
100 mi) (43 kWh/100 mi) 100 mi)

- All estimated fuel costs based on 15,000 miles annual driving, 45% highway and 55% city.
- The utility factor represents, on average, the percentage of miles that will be driven using electricity by an average driver.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 414430
A. Mahmoudzadeh Andwari et al.
Fig. 9. Estimation of the capital cost of a medium size BEV.
In a broader sense, the availability of lithium is a controversial
issue. The lithium supply was considered as insucient for the
development of lithium-ion BEV on a large scale by [51,52], however
his conclusions were questioned by [141,142] who concluded that the
resource depletion concern was unfounded. These evaluations of
lithium resources dier greatly. The more common conclusion is that
lithium supply will be sucient for a few decades [137], even if, to
mitigate the issue, it is often seen as necessary to reduce the quantity of
lithium used in one battery and to develop recycling [40,143].
4.3. Impact on the grid
Concerns have been raised on the technical and economic impact of
an increased number of BEVs on the grid. This problem is all the more
acute as BEV numbers are likely to be concentrated in some areas
[144]. The power required during charging, and more acutely during
fast charging, is signicant. Local transformers are the weakest link in
the transmission and distribution system: such an increase in power
demand could cause their overheating and destruction [145]. Another
issue is a possible imbalance of the 3 phase system if the new loads are
not equally distributed [118].
To solve these issues, a detailed analysis of the local distribution of
those areas should be carried out to identify the areas where the
distribution system needs to be reinforced. Users should be encouraged
to charge their vehicles overnight through dedicated pricing schemes
[146], and charging must start at dierent hours of the night in the
same neighbourhood [144]. System Operators of the network would
need to access some information on the penetration of BEV in dierent
areas in order to plan the reinforcement of the network [147].
Three solutions exist for a lower impact on the grid. The rst one,
which is the easiest to implement and is used on the Nissan Leaf, is to
install a timer on board, set by the user [148]. However the user must
be aware of dierent taris, and might not plan the charge at a
convenient time for the network. The second solution relies on
automatic monitoring in real time of electricity prices, the user xing
the threshold where the charge begins. It is a more futuristic solution,
as both the technology and the electricity market must evolve in order
to implement it [147].
The last solution is the Vehicle to Grid (V2G) technology [46,149].
It is the least ready option for commercial adoption. It requires bi-
directional power ow management, smart meters, control and com-
munication devices, and meters. The parked vehicle plays an active role
in the grid management and is able to send power to the network
during peak demand and charge its battery when supply is too high. It
acts as an emergency power supply as well as a storage device, which
could for instance oset the intermittency of renewables. Its role is
422
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 414430
limited by the current carrying capacity of the lines and cables
connecting the vehicle to the grid, and by its battery capacity, however
if the market penetration of BEVs (and PHEVs to a lesser extent) is
high enough, the overall capacity could become signicant. The
challenges of V2G are the creation of communication standards and
networks between the vehicles and the grid operators, and the
integration of a smart device, which controls the energy ow by taking
into account the needs of the users. It could represent a signicant
extra cost to the vehicle, and must be compensated by attractive pricing
[150]. An aggregator, in charge of the control of a group of loads, would
be needed to coordinate the communications between the grid operator
and the vehicles [151]. However, as the battery life depends on the
number of charge and discharge cycles, V2G could become a con-
tributor to lower life expectancy of batteries. Given their cost, it would
negatively impact the cost attractiveness of the scheme.
If BEVs are charged during o-peak period, they could have a
positive impact on the cost of electricity. More electricity could be sold
without any major reinforcement of the network required. The network
charges per kWh, which currently represents up to 20% of the
electricity bill in the UK, could be reduced [1].
4.4. Performance and pricing of current BEVs eet
In the last couple of years many models of electric cars have been
released with many more being planned for release. This can be seen as
proof that manufacturers believe in the potential of BEVs. In Table 3,
some models of BEVs are compared in a table, based on carmakers
publications. The Mitsubishi i-MiEV, BMW i3, Nissan Leaf, Telsla
Model S, Chevrolet Volt, Honda Fit and etc. have been commercialised
in recent years. With the exception of the Tesla Roadster, which targets
premium customers, these cars have a range of approximately 150 km.
The battery technology used is Lithium-ion. Most of the carmakers
propose, or will propose soon, their own model of BEV. Prices of
battery electric city cars start at 23,990 including the 5000 govern-
ment plug-in car grant, but they are also available with other less
traditional schemes [92,112,130,131,152,153].
4.5. Cost of ownership of BEVs
4.5.1. Capital cost and running cost
As it can be seen Fig. 9 [3], even if battery costs are expected to
decrease dramatically with the optimization of manufacturing pro-
cesses (scale and learning eect) and by the use of lower cost materials
[154], it still represents an important share of the total cost of the
vehicle. The capital cost of BEVs is higher than ICEVs, reducing greatly
its attractiveness to consumers [155].
A. Mahmoudzadeh Andwari et al.
However the running cost of BEVs is lower: it has been evaluated as
being equal to one seventh of the running cost of a comparable ICEV
[2]. These savings are less visible at the purchase of the vehicle, but
they can compensate the higher capital cost after a few years which
makes a total cost of ownership approach to comparison essential
[156,157].
4.5.2. Cost of ownership
The total cost of ownership takes into account the capital cost,
running cost, and sometimes end of life cost. It is the most compre-
hensive tool for any cost comparison between vehicles. In the litera-
ture, several studies can be found which evaluate it over a long
timescale for dierent types of vehicles and the total cost of ownership
of BEVs, FCEVs, FCHEVs and ICEVs and their sensitivity to fuel prices
is compared in [40,89,104,140,158].
It concluded that BEVs and FCHEVs could have the lowest life cycle
cost by 2030. However, this depends greatly on the size of the battery:
it should be kept to a minimum to be attractive. A report by [3]
concluded that the total cost of ownership of ICEVs, BEVs, PHEVs and
FCEVs will converge after 2025. By 2030, BEVs are estimated to be cost
competitive for small and medium vehicles. Another report [159]
studied the running cost of ICEVs and BEVs including the battery
amortized over 10 years, and concluded that the crossover date could
be between 2020 and 2026, depending on the relative prices of
batteries, electricity and fossil fuels.
The results of these studies are consistent and conclude that BEVs
are not currently economically attractive but could be by 2030.
However it depends greatly on fuel and battery prices, the price
evolution of which cannot be foreseen for such a timescale.
It must be noted that the cost of ownership of BEVs increases
signicantly when the battery has to be changed during the lifetime of
the vehicle [2]. Current average life of a vehicle in the UK was 14 years
whereas battery life is expected to reach 10 years (but is probably lower
at the moment). As vehicles lose value each year, battery replacement
would probably exceed the value of the car, leading to premature end of
life. This has not been taken into account in the previously cited
studies.
One interesting metric with which to compare the cost of ownership
of BEVs with ICEs is the breakeven price of petrol [29]. It is the retail
price that petrol must attain to equal the cost of ownership of the two
vehicles. In [30] it has been estimated between $2 and $3/gallon for a
160 km range vehicle which appears very low. Oil prices are volatile
and susceptible to strong rises in the next decades because of resource
scarcity and possible geopolitical issues. BEVs could become economic-
ally attractive after such an increase in petrol prices.
The nancing scheme of the infrastructure needed to develop BEVs
and PHEVs is not clear yet; however the total investment needed for
Europe in the next 40 years has been estimated to 540 billion euros to
meet the demand of 200 million vehicles by 2050 [3].
4.5.3. Cost of absence of externalities
BEVs have advantages over ICEVs in that they do not rely on
foreign and depleting fossil fuel supplies and produce no tailpipe
emissions of NOx, SOx and particulates. These advantages are valuable
as it means BEVs can help alleviate environmental greenhouse gas
impact as well as to improve both public health and energy security.
Environmental and political benets could be priced in order to
integrate their value in the market [40]. It is the role of policies to
put an economic value on externalities. We will see how governments
can act in the last part of this report: they can play an important role in
the economic attractiveness of BEVs compared to ICEVs [160].
4.6. Innovative business models
Currently one of the main barriers to the adoption of electric
vehicles is the high initial cost of the vehicle due to the battery cost.
423
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 414430
This is why innovative business models have been implemented, either
to reduce it, or to propose an entirely new relationship to cars.
4.6.1. Better place
Launched in 2008, the company proposed the delivery of the
network and services necessary for the development of electric vehicles,
and therefore to remove one of the main barriers to the development of
BEVs, at a local or national scale [127]. However, as of 2013, Better
Place closed down its operations but the business model it was based
on was interesting nonetheless. The range of services and infrastruc-
tures oered was broad [161,162]. First of all, the company oered to
provide and install a network of charging spots and battery switch
stations. Secondly, it oered BEV drivers services such as embedded
energy monitoring, support, and a route planning system, which takes
into account the vehicle range and available charging spots. Finally, it
had designed a network software, which could monitor the batteries
and their needs, in order to anticipate energy demand, communicate in
real time with the grid operators, and allow them to implement
intelligent charging in order to avoid peak periods and oset the
intermittency of renewable energy sources [163,164].
4.6.2. Car clubs
Car clubs propose pay-as-you-go cars, mainly for urban drivers, on
the same scheme as Barclays bicycle hire scheme in London. Cars are
parked in specic spots, and each client can borrow one for as long as
needed and pay for the time he uses it. These schemes are interesting
for urban clients: it allows them to avoid the insurance and main-
tenance of a car, they only use infrequently. Some of the car clubs
propose electric vehicles only as they focus on urban users. In La
Rochelle, France, Ylomobile has proposed BEVs since 1999 [165], for
7/h (or less with a monthly subscription). Other car clubs, such as
Autolib in France, plan to switch at least partially to electric vehicles
[166]. Car clubs could be a promising niche market for BEVs. As they
develop at a city scale, local policies have an important weight. Their
clients are urban users who could benet greatly from the advantages
of BEVs. Moreover it allows users to rent a car with an appropriate
range for each of their trips, and eventually exchange for another car
with a full battery during their trip.
4.6.3. Monthly payment: Citron C-Zero and Pininfarina Bluecar
Some car manufacturers have decided to rent their cars to their
customers instead of selling them. It is the case for Pininfarina, with
the Bluecar [112], and Citron, with the C-Zero. The C-Zero oer in the
UK has been disclosed [152] and consists of a four-year, 40,000 mile
contract, which will be available with a monthly payment of 415
excluding VAT. Included is the lease of the car and the battery pack; an
8 year (or 80,000 mile) warranty on the vehicle, the battery pack and
the power train; and the servicing and maintenance for four years and
40,000 miles.
The eventual problems with the battery that concern consumers are
covered by the warranty. More importantly, it could seem more
attractive for them as the savings on running costs (fuel, parking fees
and congestion charges) are more noticeable on a monthly basis, and
can compensate more visibly for the higher cost of the vehicle [167].
4.6.4. Segmentation of the market
McKinsey study suggested that manufacturers should not try to
design electric vehicles which satisfy a majority of customers [168].
Instead, they should tailor BEV to the needs of precise categories of
customers. For instance, for urban drivers, and for the second car of a
household, the range needed is most of the time lower than what is
proposed by the manufacturers. Given the high price of the batteries, it
would be more economic for them to buy a car with lower perfor-
mances. This is why this study suggests that market segmentation by
driving mission is crucial for carmakers.
Those innovative business models tackle the issue of high capital
A. Mahmoudzadeh Andwari et al.
cost, development of the infrastructure, battery warranty, and range
anxiety and have the potential to, therefore, contribute greatly to the
development of BEVs. However, policies will need to be brought
forward to develop the infrastructure, decrease capital and running
costs and increase the public awareness of BEVs in order to achieve
market penetration. After this initial political eort, scale and learning
eects alongside a suitable infrastructure and high visibility, should
ensure an autonomous development [169].
5. The crucial role of policies for the adoption of BEV
5.1. BEV for clean transportation
BEVs, as well as Fuel Cell Vehicles (FCVs), are often mentioned as
Zero emission vehicles in the press and on manufacturers presenta-
tions. For instance on promotional pictures of the Nissan Leaf, and on
one of the car websites. The car is clearly presented as a zero emission
vehicle, without any further explanation or restriction of the term.
BMW UK launched an advertisement campaign for one of its
electric vehicles with the words "zero CO2 when driving". The
Advertisement Standard Authority, judging this expression misleading,
forbade future statements in the UK on BEVs advertisement implying
that their use does not produce any emissions [170]. This logo does not
appear on the Nissan UK website [131].
The above cases illustrate the public misperception of the real
environmental impact of BEVs. International and governmental green-
house gas emission reduction roadmaps rely on BEVs, among other
technologies, to reduce the emissions due to transportation. BEV
impact is seen as a fact that can help to meet the CO2 reduction
targets, because of the absence of tailpipe emissions. However, battery
manufacturing and disposal, and the carbon intensity of electricity
generation, must be taken into account in order to realise that BEVs are
far from being zero-emission vehicles. The environmental impact of
BEVs from cradle to grave has been assessed in reports, but the
conclusions dier slightly. The UK Department for Business Enterprise
and Regulatory Reform and the Department for Transport [171]
presented a comparison of a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of BEVs
and ICEVs. To take into account future reduction in emissions due to
electricity generation and technological improvements of the vehicles,
dierent results are calculated for 2010, 2020 and 2030. Ten criteria
were used for the assessment. In 2010, BEVs scored better than ICEVs
in climate change impact, non-renewable resource depletion and noise.
They scored better than petrol- but worse than diesel engine equipped
ICEVs in aquatic eco-toxicity and photochemical oxidant formation,
and better than diesel but worse than petrol for eutrophication [172].
BEVs impact is worse on air acidication, water use, waste generation
and human health. Their possibility of improvement for 2030 is very
high, but the overall results for 2010 show that the decarbonisation of
the grid is crucial to improve the environmental impact of BEVs so that
it becomes a low-carbon technology [173]. The share of the total BEV
impact due to the extraction of resources for the battery is stated for
each criterion and it is very high, ranging between 12% and 87%.
According to another study [174], 50% of BEV life cycle emissions
stem from the lithium-ion battery. Compared to ICEVs, the emissions
shifted from operation to fuel generation, with an overall reduction of
58% in emissions per km.
These results dier highly from those presented in [175]. It is
concluded that the operational phase dominates the production of
emissions by BEVs. The environmental impact caused by the battery,
measured with Eco-indicator 99, a LCA methodology based on Human
Health, Ecosystems, and Resources criterion, is evaluated at 15% of the
total. The impact of the extraction of lithium for the battery is under
2.3%, the majority of battery emissions originating from the supply of
copper and aluminium.
In Belgium, greenhouse gas emissions of BEVs, on a life cycle basis,
were estimated 78.27% lower than petrol vehicle emissions [176].
424
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 414430
BEVs received better scores than LPG, hybrid and petrol vehicle in
greenhouse gas emissions, air acidication and human health.
Moreover the potential of BEV is higher as the introduction of renew-
ables into the country mix would greatly improve the results. However,
diesel vehicles have not been studied in this paper. This conclusion
diers from the other results, which may be due to dierent boundaries
or a lower carbon density of the Belgium energy mix considered.
The research conclusions that have been described dier in their
results. The environmental impact of BEVs is still controversial;
however, it becomes clear that in many countries there is a need to
improve the carbon intensity of electricity generation for BEVs to
obtain lower impact gures compared to new diesel ICEVs. In addition,
it is necessary to compare BEVs to new and future ICEVs. It is a
common mistake to compare new BEVs to the average ICEV, as cars
manufacturers have improved their eciency and environmental
impact. The correct evaluation has to be between two new cars for
the future of transportation.
Because of the diversity in their energy mix, BEV environmental
benets are unequal between European countries. However, there is a
consensus on the fact that BEVs do improve the air quality in urban
areas, because of the absence of tailpipes emissions such as NOx, SOx
and particulates [2]. Secondly, the carbon intensity of the grid is
usually lower at night [2]. The less reactive power plants, which operate
at night to provide the base load, are also generally less carbon
intensive (for instance, nuclear power plants). Most of the BEVs would
be charged overnight. The LCAs, which are based on average carbon
intensity of electricity, slightly overestimate, therefore, the climate
change impact of BEVs.
5.2. The role of BEVs to meet greenhouse gas emission targets
Even if the emissions of BEVs are currently only slightly lower than
those of diesel ICEVs (depending on the country), it is usually seen as
one of the solutions to make it possible for Greenhouse Gas (GHG)
emission reduction targets by 2050 to be achieved.
5.2.1. The role of BEV in IEAs technology roadmap
In Energy Technology Perspectives 2008, the IEA created a
scenario, called the BLUE Map scenario, where annual CO2 emissions
are halved from 2005 to 2050. Reports have been published to describe
the contribution of dierent sectors needed to reach this target, as well
as the role of the dierent stakeholders, and how they should interact.
One of them [35] described the role of BEVs and PHEVs in LDV
transportation. They have to account for a 30% reduction in CO2
emissions of this sector by 2050.
The targets set by the roadmap are ambitious: at least 5 million of
BEVs and PHEVs combined sold per year by 2020, and 50% of the sales
worldwide by 2050. Fig. 10 shows the distribution of annual LDV sales
by technology up to 2050. BEVs sales increase from 2030 and in 2050
they are the second most sold type of vehicle after Hydrogen vehicles
[177].
Fig. 10. Annual light-duty vehicle sales by technology type on the BLUE Map scenario.
A. Mahmoudzadeh Andwari et al.
Table 4
Domestic transport electrification levels on the DECC 2050 Pathways Analysis (in
percentage of car travels in 2050) [142].
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Conventional Car 78% 35% 20%
Hybrid Electric 20% 54% 32%
BEV 3% 10% 28% 80%
FCEV 1% 20% 20%
In order to meet the targets of the scenario, and stabilise GHG
concentration in the atmosphere, the market share of BEVs must be
increased very quickly to replace both Gasoline and Diesel ICEVs. This
scenario illustrates the fact that the IEA believes in the potential of
BEVs to be accepted by consumers and reduce signicantly the
emissions of road transport [178].
5.2.2. The role of BEVs in DECC 2050 pathways analysis
The UK has committed to an 80% reduction of its greenhouse gas
emissions by 2050, relative to 1990 levels. The Department of Energy
and Climate Change (DECC) has developed a calculator which allows
the selection of the intensity of the countrys eorts across dierent
elds and technologies, on a scale from 1 to 4 [179]. For each
proposition, it displays information, including the consequences on
UK GHG emissions up to 2050 and the percentage of imported primary
energy. One of the parameters is Domestic transport electrication
and is evaluated with the percentage of kilometres driven with dierent
technologies, in 2050. Table 4 describes the assumptions made for each
level of eort in this eld. It illustrates the important role of BEVs in
DECCs analysis.
The 2050 Web Tool provides example pathways presented by
scientists and institutions such as National Grid, Friends of the
Earth, Campaign for Protection of Rural England, and Energy
Technology Institute. Even if those pathways have very dierent
origins, they all are favourable to domestic transport electrication,
as four of the six examples advise a Level 4 eort and two a Level 3 in
that eld. When faced with having to make a trade-o between
dierent solutions to improve energy security and GHG emissions
reduction, electrication of domestic transport is an eort that a
majority are willing to make. It is much less controversial than wind
turbines or nuclear energy, for instance. However, this remains a
theoretical acceptance, dierent from a consumers acceptance, be-
cause it is made from the point of view of policymakers facing a choice
to meet a target [180]. Nevertheless, the political acceptance allows the
implementation of policies to facilitate the adoption of BEVs.
5.3. Policy options to develop BEVs
In order to reduce CO2 emissions from LDV, policies have been
implemented in Europe to promote low carbon vehicles. It can be seen
as a way to give a value to the absence of tailpipe emissions. In a 2009
report evaluating the eective policies for cleaner passenger vehicles
and based on a literature study [181], it has been concluded that in
order for policies to be ecient and take into account any potential side
eect of a single measure, they must be designed as a whole set and not
individually. Emissions regulation, purchase and fuel taxes, associated
with education, information and rules on marketing and labelling, can
help the shift to an ecient car eet. It states that policies can inuence
behaviours. It must be noticed that this report did not consider the
policies associated with electric vehicles in particular; however most of
the measures are common [182,183]. The main measures which could
help the development of BEVs, are described below and can be grouped
in ve categories: emissions regulations, information and education,
reduction of capital and running cost, and development of the
infrastructure [184].
425
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 414430
5.3.1. Emission regulations
The Euro standard, an EU legislation, imposes strict limits on
pollutants emissions of LDV, such as carbon monoxides, particulates,
nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbon. Dierent levels have been dened:
Euro 6 standards are currently in application. These regulations
concern diesel, petrol and natural gas vehicles. Higher standards could
probably reduce the dierence in initial cost between ICE and BEV.
5.3.2. Information and education
The emissions of vehicles are given by manufacturers and displayed
in the saleroom. However this is insucient given the high initial cost
of BEVs. The life cycle cost must be clearly explained to customers so
that they can be less dependent on the initial cost of the vehicle in their
choice of vehicles. Labelling and clear marketing must support the
measures which reduce the cost of the vehicle [181,185]. Last of all, the
lack of condence of consumers, on safety and range issues for
instance, must be tackled. It can be done through high-visibility trials,
such as taxi eets, accurate information on the performance of BEVs,
and an introduction in government eets [35,186].
5.3.3. Reduction of the capital cost of the vehicles
As customers often fail to evaluate the cost of ownership of a vehicle
over a lifetime, it is seen as necessary to provide incentives at the sale
[187]. It can be done with car grants and fees or rebates systems based
on emissions, at time of vehicle purchase. In the UK, the Plug-In Car
Grant has been implemented since January 2011. This technology
neutral approach targets ultra-low (tailpipe) emissions cars, including
BEVs. The grant received by the buyer of a qualifying vehicle is of 25%
of the cost of the vehicle, up to a maximum of 5000 [188]. In 2008,
this kind of measure was implemented in France, Spain, Belgium and
Sweden, and electric vehicles were exempted from registration tax in
Greece, the Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland and Norway [189].
5.3.4. Lower running cost
5.3.4.1. Road tax reduction. In some European countries, vehicle
owners must pay an annual tax in order to use their vehicle. The
amount depends on the CO2 emissions of the vehicle. By lowering this
tax for BEVs, it is possible to increase the attractiveness of those
vehicles. In 2008 electric vehicles were exempted from road tax in
Norway, Denmark and Greece [2].
5.3.4.2. Fuel taxation. An increase of the taxation on diesel and petrol
would have a positive impact on BEVs by comparison. Another
alternative to fuel taxation is a tax per driven kilometre, depending
on the car emissions, or per gram of CO2 emitted (which is equivalent).
5.3.4.3. Local policies: urban access restrictions and parking
reduction. In order to reduce the congestion or to improve air
quality, many European cities have implemented Urban Access
Restrictions schemes. These can result in a total ban of some
categories of vehicles in city centres or road pricing and permits.
BEVs are exempted most of the time from these limited trac zones
and can circulate without a permit. It is the case in Bologna, Hannover,
Verona, Munich, Stuttgart, Oslo, Poitiers, Krakow, Modena and
London, for instance [190]. In Rome and Florence, BEVs receive a
50% discount compared to Euro 5 vehicles. It is all the more important
than BEVs are targeting mainly urban users: this tax exemption can
represent for some consumers important savings.
Parking fee reductions or exemptions is a measure implemented
locally, in some districts. Depending on the habits of the drivers, it can
also represent an important advantage for some users. Such measures
A. Mahmoudzadeh Andwari et al.
have been implemented in Norway, Denmark, Italy, Greece, and in the
UK [2191]. Preferential parking spots, with charge points, could also be
implemented [34].
5.3.5. Charging infrastructure
The infrastructure network in public areas represents an important
investment. Moreover it is a chicken and egg situation, as private
investors would prefer to invest in a network if the demand exists and
the consumers would consider buying BEV once the network has been
built. This is why it can be necessary to create incentives for the
creation of infrastructure in public areas, or even to provide the
charging spots directly [192]. This measure is one of those advised
by the IEA [34].
5.4. An integrated approach: public private partnerships for the
development of BEVs
It is important that the high number of stakeholders involved in
BEV development to integrate their approach and work coherently on
solutions to the complex issues that currently slow down the develop-
ment of BEV. One such approach is developed by the Green eMotion
project, a Public Private Partnership supported by the European Union.
Launched in 2011, its aim is to promote electromobility by an
accumulation of experience in European test regions, carrying an
improvement in the technology [193]. This 4 year project has a planned
budget of 42 million euros, including 24 million euros from the EU
[193]. It involves 42 partners from dierent European countries but
also various sectors: industries such as Alstom, Better Place, Bosch,
IBM, SAP or Siemens, utilities such as EDF, Endesa or Enel, the EV
manufacturers BMW, Daimler, Micro-Vett, Nissan and Renault and
European municipalities (Roma, Copenhagen, Barcelona and Berlin
among others), ten research institutions and universities across Europe
and EV Technology Institutions (Danish Technological Institute, FKA,
TUV Nord) [194].
This project has two goals, and each one cannot be completed
without this partnership across borders and sectors. The rst one is
standardization, which is considered as the key factor for a fast and
cost ecient European rollout of electricity [195], as well as the
development of common European processes, standards and IT solu-
tions. The second one is to broaden the scale of EV trials from local
experiments to European networks. Charging networks within the
demonstration regions is planned to increase to 14,000 spots, mainly
in Berlin, Barcelona, Madrid and Malaga. This is expected to oer the
eld experience needed for an improvement of the technology.
This European co-ordination of stakeholders is necessary to over-
come some of the barriers toward the development of BEV: the
standardization of the infrastructure, for example, is necessary to
reduce its cost, and large scale trials will allow the identication of
consumers needs and diculties. It could foster partnerships between
industries and generate economies of scale. The contacts between
industries and research institutions will also bring funding to the
institutions as well as promising technologies to the industries and it
would help co-ordinate research eorts in EV.
Collaboration on a global scale is more dicult but potentially more
rewarding. The IEA proposed to play a role in the co-ordination of the
eorts in its roadmap [186], mainly in planning, organisation of
workshops, data collection, research methodology and analysis , but
also by running joint research programs. The aims of this initiative are
directed towards collaboration and information sharing, global systems
such as recycling systems, standardization of the infrastructure,
reporting on best practices to avoid the repetition of mistakes, and
identication and assistance to the countries identied as rst adop-
ters.
426
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 414430
6. Conclusions
Climate and energy security concerns make the infusion of electric
propulsion inevitable for the road transport sector. Among the possible
technologies for LDVs, BEVs have a high potential, illustrated by their
important role in the IEA roadmap; despite the fact that there are
certain challenges, which have to be overcome. It is clear that the future
landscape of the road transportation mix will be composed of various
propulsion technologies, each one being a compromise between emis-
sions and range. BEVs will probably be the most suitable for urban,
small to medium sized vehicles, while hybrid vehicles, and fuel-cell
vehicles appear to be more applicable for the longer-ranged and larger
vehicles.
Carmakers have started to commercialize BEVs since a number of
years and manufacturers are proposing charging spot infrastructures.
However, challenges must be overcome for them to obtain important
market penetration from the current very low uptake. The social
acceptance of BEVs must be earned. Technology, and particularly that
of the battery, must improve to meet the cost and range expectations of
consumers. Infrastructures must be developed, and they require
important standardization eorts. Education and information are also
crucial so that consumers can base their choices on sound perceptions
of the total cost of ownership and performance of electric vehicles.
Extensive eorts have already been expended to overcome the
diculty of increasing the techno-socio-economical readiness levels of
BEVs. Research for BEVs and PHEVs is very active. For instance, new
battery materials and designs are being developed. Range extenders
can overcome the range anxiety issue. Numerous partnerships have
been formed between industries, governments, and research facilities
to coordinate eorts and extend work on standardization. New busi-
ness models are being developed, adapted to the new constraints of
BEV commercialisation. To put a value on environmental benet and
independence from oil, governments implement incentives to compen-
sate for the higher cost of ownership of BEVs. Their increased market
penetration will progressively decrease their cost due to economies of
scale and increased process learning curves coming into eect. By
2030, most of the reports estimate that on a life cycle basis, BEVs will
have become competitive to ICEVs. However, due to uncertainties of
battery, electricity, gasoline and hydrogen costs, and the pricing
scheme of externalities, it is impossible to precisely determine this
date. Adding to the unpredictability of social acceptance and despite
numerous reports on the subject, the rate of development of BEVs
cannot be accurately determined and therefore forecast models carry a
fairly substantial uncertainty margin. Environmental impact forecasts
are equally unpredictable and susceptible to uncertainties particularly,
also, due to the impact of externalities and the eects of the prevailing
regional socio-political landscapes.
The literature in the eld of BEVs is very rich on this eld, and are
continuous and rapidly changing. Few years ago BEVs were generally
considered as a niche market with an unclear future, but this opinion
has changed. Currently the potential of the technology is recognised
and eorts are made for faster market penetration. However the future
of the technology in terms of uptake and in the long term vehicle power
mix, is still uncertain as the cost of the battery will probably remain
prohibitively high in the next 20 years considering, also, the competi-
tion from other low carbon technologies with smaller battery capacities
such as PHEV.
References
[1] Liu L, Kong F, Liu X, Peng Y, Wang Q. A review on electric vehicles interacting
with renewable energy in smart grid. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;51:64861.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.06.036.
[2] Investigation into the scope for the transport sector to swtich to electric vehicles
and plug -in hybrid vehicles; 2008.
[3] A portfolio of power-trains for Europe: a fact-based analysis; 2010.
[4] Poullikkas A. Sustainable options for electric vehicle technologies. Renew Sustain
A. Mahmoudzadeh Andwari et al.
Energy Rev 2015;41:127787. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.09.016.
[5] Wager G, Whale J, Braunl T. Driving electric vehicles at highway speeds: the eect
of higher driving speeds on energy consumption and driving range for electric
vehicles in Australia. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;63:15865. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.05.060.
[6] Shae-khah M, Neyestani N, Damavandi MY, Gil FAS, Catalo JPS. Economic and
technical aspects of plug-in electric vehicles in electricity markets. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2016;53:116877. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.079.
[7] Al-Alawi BM, Bradley TH. Review of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and electric vehicle
market modeling studies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;21:190203. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.12.048.
[8] Hannan M a, Azidin FA, Mohamed A. Hybrid electric vehicles and their challenges:
a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;29:13550. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2013.08.097.
[9] Arora S, Shen W, Kapoor A. Review of mechanical design and strategic placement
technique of a robust battery pack for electric vehicles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;60:131931. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.03.013.
[10] Hannan MA, Hoque MM, Mohamed A, Ayob A. Review of energy storage systems
for electric vehicle applications: issues and challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2017;69:77189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.171.
[11] Aghaei J, Nezhad AE, Rabiee A, Rahimi E. Contribution of plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles in power system uncertainty management. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;59:4508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.207.
[12] Dallinger D, Wietschel M. Grid integration of intermittent renewable energy
sources using price-responsive plug-in electric vehicles. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2012;16:337082. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.02.019.
[13] Raslaviius L, Kerys A, Makaras R. Management of hybrid powertrain dynamics
and energy consumption for 2WD, 4WD, and {HMMWV} vehicles. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2017;68(Part 1):38096. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2016.09.109.
[14] Li Y, Yang J, Song J. Nano energy system model and nanoscale eect of graphene
battery in renewable energy electric vehicle. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2017;69:65263. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.118.
[15] Yang SC, Li M, Tang TQ, Lin Y. An electric vehicles battery life model under car-
following model. Meas J Int Meas Confed 2013;46:422631. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.measurement.2013.07.035.
[16] Hu J, Morais H, Sousa T, Lind M. Electric vehicle eet management in smart
grids: a review of services, optimization and control aspects. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2016;56:120726. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.014.
[17] Li Y, Yang J, Song J. Design structure model and renewable energy technology for
rechargeable battery towards greener and more sustainable electric vehicle. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2017;74:1925. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2017.02.021.
[18] Sabri MFM, Danapalasingam KA, Rahmat MF. A review on hybrid electric vehicles
architecture and energy management strategies. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;53:143342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.036.
[19] Tie SF, Tan CW. A review of energy sources and energy management system in
electric vehicles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;20:82102. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.077.
[20] Peng M, Liu L, Jiang C. A review on the economic dispatch and risk management
of the large-scale plug-in electric vehicles (PHEVs)-penetrated power systems.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012;16:150815. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2011.12.009.
[21] Amjad S, Neelakrishnan S, Rudramoorthy R. Review of design considerations and
technological challenges for successful development and deployment of plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2010;14:110410. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.11.001.
[22] Shareef H, Islam MM, Mohamed A. A review of the stage-of-the-art charging
technologies, placement methodologies, and impacts of electric vehicles. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2016;64:40320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2016.06.033.
[23] Castro TS, de Souza TM, Silveira JL. Feasibility of electric vehicle: electricity by
gridphotovoltaic energy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;69:107784. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.099.
[24] Hota AR, Juvvanapudi M, Bajpai P. Issues and solution approaches in PHEV
integration to the smart grid. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;30:21729. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.10.008.
[25] Yilmaz M. Limitations/capabilities of electric machine technologies and modeling
approaches for electric motor design and analysis in plug-in electric vehicle
applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;52:8099. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.033.
[26] Ashique RH, Salam Z, Aziz MJBA, Bhatti AR. Integrated photovoltaic-grid dc fast
charging system for electric vehicle: a review of the architecture and control.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;69:124357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2016.11.245.
[27] Kumar MS, Revankar ST. Development scheme and key technology of an electric
vehicle: an overview. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;70:126685. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.027.
[28] Weiss M, Patel MK, Junginger M, Perujo A, Bonnel P, van Grootveld G. On the
electrication of road transport learning rates and price forecasts for hybrid-
electric and battery-electric vehicles. Energy Policy 2012;48:37493. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.05.038.
[29] Burke A, Jungers B, Yang C, Ogden J. Battery electric vehicles: an assessment of
the technology and factors inuencing market readiness. Public Interes Energy
Res Progr Calif Energy Comm 2007:124.
[30] Burke AF. Batteries and ultracapacitors for electric, hybrid, and fuel cell vehicles.
427
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 414430
Proc IEEE 2007;95:80620. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2007.892490.
[31] Fotouhi A, Auger DJ, Propp K, Longo S, Wild M. A review on electric vehicle
battery modelling: from lithium-ion toward lithiumsulphur. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 2016;56:100821. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.009.
[32] Manzetti S, Mariasiu F. Electric vehicle battery technologies: from present state to
future systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;51:100412. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.010.
[33] Guibert Ade. Batteries and supercapacitors cells for the fully electric vehicle; 2009.
[34] IEA. EV/PHEV roadmap targets; 2009.
[35] IEA. Technology Roadmap Electric and plug-in electric vehicles; 2013 http://dx.
doi.org/10.1007/SpringerReference_7300; .
[36] Hensley R, Knupfer S, Pinner D. Electrifying cars: How three industries will
evolve. McKinsey Co; 2009 http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/manufacturing/
electrifying_cars_how_three_industries_will_evolve [Accessed 27 February
2015].
[37] Bhatti AR, Salam Z, Aziz MJBA, Yee KP, Ashique RH. Electric vehicles charging
using photovoltaic: status and technological review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;54:3447. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.091.
[38] Rahman I, Vasant PM, Singh BSM, Abdullah-Al-Wadud M, Adnan N. Review of
recent trends in optimization techniques for plug-in hybrid, and electric vehicle
charging infrastructures. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;58:103947. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.353.
[39] Miller JM. Energy storage system technology challenges facing strong hybrid,
plug-in and battery electric vehicles. Veh Power Propuls Conference 2009. VPPC
09. IEEE; 2009. p. 410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/VPPC.2009.5289879.
[40] Oer GJ, Howey D, Contestabile M, Clague R, Brandon NP. Comparative analysis
of battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid vehicles in a future sustainable
road transport system. Energy Policy 2010;38:249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.enpol.2009.08.040.
[41] Miller JM, Bohn T, Dougherty TJ, Deshpande U. Why hybridization of energy
storage is essential for future hybrid, plug-in and battery electric vehicles. 2009
IEEE Energy Convers. Congr. Expo. ECCE 2009; 2009. p. 261420. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1109/ECCE.2009.5316096.
[42] Li Y, Yang J, Song J. Microscale characterization of coupled degradation
mechanism of graded materials in lithium batteries of electric vehicles. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2015;50:144561. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2015.05.080.
[43] Deberitz J. Lithium: production and application of a fascinating and versatile
element, 2nd ed. Verlag Moderne Industrie; 2006.
[44] Scrosati B, Garche J. Lithium batteries: status, prospects and future. J Power
Sources 2010;195:241930. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2009.11.048.
[45] Schuster SF, Brand MJ, Berg P, Gleissenberger M, Jossen A. Lithium-ion cell-to-
cell variation during battery electric vehicle operation. J Power Sources
2015;297:24251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2015.08.001.
[46] Nemry F, Leduc G, Muoz A. Plug-in hybrid and battery-electric vehicles: state of
the research and development and comparative analysis of energy and cost
eciency; 2009.
[47] Groenewald J, Grandjean T, Marco J. Accelerated energy capacity measurement of
lithium-ion cells to support future circular economy strategies for electric vehicles.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;69:98111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2016.11.017.
[48] Riba J-R, Lpez-Torres C, Romeral L, Garcia A. Rare-earth-free propulsion
motors for electric vehicles: a technology review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2016;57:36779. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.121.
[49] Faria R, Marques P, Moura P, Freire F, Delgado J, De Almeida AT. Impact of the
electricity mix and use prole in the life-cycle assessment of electric vehicles.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013;24:27187. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2013.03.063.
[50] Capasso C, Veneri O. Experimental analysis on the performance of lithium based
batteries for road full electric and hybrid vehicles. Appl Energy 2014;136:110.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.04.013.
[51] Tahil W. The Trouble with Lithium 2 under the microscope; 2008.
[52] Tahil W. The Trouble with Lithium; 2006.
[53] Grosjean C, Herrera Miranda P, Perrin M, Poggi P. Assessment of world lithium
resources and consequences of their geographic distribution on the expected
development of the electric vehicle industry. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2012;16:173544. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.11.023.
[54] Amiribavandpour P, Shen W, Mu D, Kapoor A. An improved theoretical electro-
chemical-thermal modelling of lithium-ion battery packs in electric vehicles. J
Power Sources 2015;284:32838. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpow-
sour.2015.03.022.
[55] Li Y, Yang J, Song J. Electromagnetic eects model and design of energy systems
for lithium batteries with gradient structure in sustainable energy electric vehicles.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;52:84251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2015.07.155.
[56] Liu G, Ouyang M, Lu L, Li J, Hua J. A highly accurate predictive-adaptive method
for lithium-ion battery remaining discharge energy prediction in electric vehicle
applications. Appl Energy 2015;149:297314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ape-
nergy.2015.03.110.
[57] Dixon JW, Nakashima I aN, Arcos F, Ortzar M. Test results in an electric vehicle
using a combination of ultracapacitors and zebra battery. IEEE Trans Ind Electron
2006;18650:56572.
[58] Chacko S, Chung YM. Thermal modelling of Li-ion polymer battery for electric
vehicle drive cycles. J Power Sources 2012;213:296303. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.04.015.
[59] Devie A, Vinot E, Pelissier S, Venet P. Real-world battery duty prole of a
A. Mahmoudzadeh Andwari et al.
neighbourhood electric vehicle. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol
2012;25:12233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2012.05.003.
[60] Peterson SB, Michalek JJ. Cost-eectiveness of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
battery capacity and charging infrastructure investment for reducing US gasoline
consumption. Energy Policy 2013;52:42938. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.en-
pol.2012.09.059.
[61] Barr A, Suard F, Grard M, Montaru M, Riu D. Statistical analysis for under-
standing and predicting battery degradations in real-life electric vehicle use. J
Power Sources 2014;245:84656. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpow-
sour.2013.07.052.
[62] Xiong R, Sun F, Chen Z, He H. A data-driven multi-scale extended Kalman
ltering based parameter and state estimation approach of lithium-ion olymer
battery in electric vehicles. Appl Energy 2014;113:46376. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.07.061.
[63] Lu L, Han X, Li J, Hua J, Ouyang M. A review on the key issues for lithium-ion
battery management in electric vehicles. J Power Sources 2013;226:27288.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.10.060.
[64] Yong JY, Ramachandaramurthy VK, Tan KM, Mithulananthan N. A review on the
state-of-the-art technologies of electric vehicle, its impacts and prospects. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2015;49:36585. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2015.04.130.
[65] Catenacci M, Verdolini E, Bosetti V, Fiorese G. Going electric: expert survey on the
future of battery technologies for electric vehicles. Energy Policy 2013;61:40313.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.078.
[66] Speirs J, Contestabile M, Houari Y, Gross R. The future of lithium availability for
electric vehicle batteries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;35:18393. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.04.018.
[67] Girishkumar G, McCloskey B, Luntz AC, Swanson S, Wilcke W. Lithiumair
battery: promise and challenges. J Phys Chem Lett 2010;1:2193203. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1021/jz1005384.
[68] Richa K, Babbitt CW, Gaustad G, Wang X. A future perspective on lithium-ion
battery waste ows from electric vehicles. Resour Conserv Recycl 2014;83:6376.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.11.008.
[69] Rao Z, Wang S, Wu M, Lin Z, Li F. Experimental investigation on thermal
management of electric vehicle battery with heat pipe. Energy Convers Manag
2013;65:927. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2012.08.014.
[70] Ling Z, Zhang Z, Shi G, Fang X, Wang L, Gao X, et al. Review on thermal
management systems using phase change materials for electronic components, Li-
ion batteries and photovoltaic modules. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2014;31:42738. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.12.017.
[71] Dai H, Wei X, Sun Z A new SOH prediction concept for the power lithium-ion
battery used on HEVs. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE veh power propuls
conference VPPC 09 2AD. p. 164953. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/VPPC.2009.
5289654.
[72] Pattipati B, Pattipati K, Christopherson JP, Namburu SM, Prokhorov DV, Qiao L.
Automotive battery management systems. AUTOTESTCON, IEEE; 2008. p. 581
6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/AUTEST.2008.4662684.
[73] Garcia P, Torreglosa JP, Fernandez LM, Jurado F. Control strategies for high-
power electric vehicles powered by hydrogen fuel cell, battery and supercapacitor.
Expert Syst Appl 2013;40:4791804. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.eswa.2013.02.028.
[74] Bauer S, Suchaneck A, Puente Len F. Thermal and energy battery management
optimization in electric vehicles using Pontryagins maximum principle. J Power
Sources 2014;246:80818. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.08.020.
[75] Zhang X, Mi CC, Yin C. Active-charging based powertrain control in series hybrid
electric vehicles for eciency improvement and battery lifetime extension. J
Power Sources 2014;245:292300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpow-
sour.2013.06.117.
[76] Guenther C, Schott B, Hennings W, Waldowski P, Danzer M a. Model-based
investigation of electric vehicle battery aging by means of vehicle-to-grid scenario
simulations. J Power Sources 2013;239:60410. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jpowsour.2013.02.041.
[77] Bonglio C, Roessler W. A cost optimized battery management system with active
cell balancing for lithium ion battery stacks. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE veh
power propuls conference VPPC 09; 2009. p. 3049. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/
VPPC.2009.5289837;
[78] Li Y, Yang J, Song J. Design principles and energy system scale analysis
technologies of new lithium-ion and aluminum-ion batteries for sustainable
energy electric vehicles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017;71:64551. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.094.
[79] Wang Q, Jiang B, Li B, Yan Y. A critical review of thermal management models
and solutions of lithium-ion batteries for the development of pure electric vehicles.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;64:10628. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2016.05.033.
[80] Dai H, Guo P, Wei X, Sun Z, Wang J. ANFIS (adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference
system) based online SOC (State of Charge) correction considering cell divergence
for the EV (electric vehicle) traction batteries. Energy 2015;80:35060. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.11.077.
[81] Wang Y, Zhang C, Chen Z, Xie J, Zhang X. A novel active equalization method for
lithium-ion batteries in electric vehicles. Appl Energy 2015;145:3642. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.127.
[82] Adany R, Aurbach D, Kraus S. Switching algorithms for extending battery life in
Electric Vehicles. J Power Sources 2013;231:509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jpowsour.2012.12.075.
[83] Hein R, Kleindorfer PR, Spinler S. Valuation of electric vehicle batteries in vehicle-
to-grid and battery-to-grid systems. Technol Forecast Soc Change
428
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 414430
2012;79:165471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.06.002.
[84] Tolj I, Lototskyy MV, Davids MW, Pasupathi S, Swart G, Pollet BG. Fuel cell-
battery hybrid powered light electric vehicle (golf cart): inuence of fuel cell on the
driving performance. Int J Hydrog Energy 2013;38:106309. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijhydene.2013.06.072.
[85] Han X, Ouyang M, Lu L, Li J. A comparative study of commercial lithium ion
battery cycle life in electric vehicle: capacity loss estimation. J Power Sources
2014;268:65869. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.06.111.
[86] Danilov D, Notten PHL. Adaptive Battery Management Systems for the new
generation of Electrical Vehicles. Veh. Power Propuls. Conference 2009. VPPC09.
IEEE; 2009. p. 31720. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/VPPC.2009.5289835.
[87] kugor B, Deur J. Dynamic programming-based optimisation of charging an
electric vehicle eet system represented by an aggregate battery model. Energy
2015:110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.03.057.
[88] Cordoba-arenas A, Onori S, Rizzoni G. A control-oriented lithium-ion battery pack
model for PHEV life-cycle studies and system design with consideration of health
management. J Power Sources 2014;1:791808. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jpowsour.2014.12.048.
[89] Lebeau K, Van Mierlo J, Lebeau P, Mairesse O, Macharis C. The market potential
for plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles in Flanders: a choice-based
conjoint analysis. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 2012;17:5927. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2012.07.004.
[90] Chau KT, Chan CC, Liu C. Overview of permanent-magnet brushless drives for
electric and hybrid electric vehicles. Ind Electron IEEE Trans 2008;55:224657.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TIE.2008.918403.
[91] Guzzella L, Sciarretta A. Electric and hybrid-electric propulsion systems. Veh
Propuls Syst Introd to Model Optim, Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2013. p. 67162.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35913-2.
[92] i-MiEV Electric Green City Car-Mitsubishi Motors UK. Mitsubishi Mot UK; 2011.
http://dx.doi.org/http://www.mitsubishi-cars.co.uk/imiev/.
[93] Emadi A, Member S, Lee YJ, Member S, Rajashekara K. Power electronics and
motor drives in electric, hybrid electric, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. IEEE
Trans Ind Electron 2008;55:223745.
[94] Seaman A, Dao TS, McPhee J. A survey of mathematics-based equivalent-circuit
and electrochemical battery models for hybrid and electric vehicle simulation. J
Power Sources 2014;256:41023. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpow-
sour.2014.01.057, [Review].
[95] Mokrani Z, Rekioua D, Rekioua T. Modeling, control and power management of
hybrid photovoltaic fuel cells with battery bank supplying electric vehicle. Int J
Hydrog Energy 2014;39:1517887. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhy-
dene.2014.03.215.
[96] Howey D, North R, Martinez-botas R. Road transport technology and climate
change mitigation. Grantham Inst Clim Chang Brief Pap No 2; 2010.
[97] Pollet BG, Staell I, Shang JL. Current status of hybrid, battery and fuel cell
electric vehicles: from electrochemistry to market prospects. Electrochim Acta
2012;84:23549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2012.03.172.
[98] Ketsingsoi S, Kumsuwan Y. An o-line battery charger based on buck-boost power
factor correction converter for plug-in electric vehicles. Energy Procedia
2014;56:65966. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2014.07.205.
[99] Baumeister J, Weise J, Hirtz E, Hhne K, Hohe J. Applications of aluminum
hybrid foam sandwiches in battery housings for electric vehicles. Procedia Mater
Sci 2014;4:3015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mspro.2014.07.565.
[100] Cuma MU, Koroglu T. A comprehensive review on estimation strategies used in
hybrid and battery electric vehicles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;42:51731.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.047.
[101] Hwang J-J, Hu J-S, Lin C-H. Design of a range extension strategy for power
decentralized fuel cell/battery electric vehicles. Int J Hydrog Energy
2015;40:1170412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.04.026.
[102] Chevrolet Volt; 2015 http://www.chevrolet.com/volt-electric-car.html
[Accessed 1 May 2015].
[103] Li Y, Song J, Yang J. Graphene models and nano-scale characterization
technologies for fuel cell vehicle electrodes. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2015;42:6677. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.005.
[104] Oer GJ, Contestabile M, Howey DA, Clague R, Brandon NP. Techno-economic
and behavioural analysis of battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid vehicles
in a future sustainable road transport system in the UK. Energy Policy
2011;39:193950. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.01.006.
[105] Sulaiman N, Hannan MA, Mohamed A, Majlan EH, Wan Daud WR. A review on
energy management system for fuel cell hybrid electric vehicle: issues and
challenges. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;52:80214. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2015.07.132.
[106] Cordner M, Matian M, Oer GJ, Hanten T, Spoorth-Jones E, Tippetts S, et al.
Designing, building, testing and racing a low-cost fuel cell range extender for a
motorsport application. J Power Sources 2010;195:783848. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.01.047.
[107] Shukla a, Aric a, Antonucci V. An appraisal of electric automobile power sources.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2001;5:13755. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-
0321(00)00011-3.
[108] Datasheet K2 Series Ultracapacitors. Maxwell Technol; 2015. http://www.
maxwell.com/docs/DATASHEET_K2_SERIES_1015370.PDF [Accessed 7
January 2015].
[109] K2 Ultracapacitors series typical characteristics; 2015.
[110] Song Z, Li J, Han X, Xu L, Lu L, Ouyang M, et al. Multi-objective optimization of a
semi-active battery/supercapacitor energy storage system for electric vehicles.
Appl Energy 2014;135:21224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ape-
nergy.2014.06.087.
A. Mahmoudzadeh Andwari et al.
[111] Pay S, Baghzouz Y. Eectiveness of battery-supercapacitor combination in electric
vehicles. Power tech conference proceedings, 2003 IEEE Bol., vol. 3; 2003, p. 6
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/PTC.2003.1304472.
[112] Bluecar by Pininfarina ; 2014 http://www.pininfarina.com/en/pininfarina_
bluecar/ [Accessed 7 May 2015].
[113] Garca-Villalobos J, Zamora I, San Martn JI, Asensio FJ, Aperribay V. Plug-in
electric vehicles in electric distribution networks: a review of smart charging
approaches. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;38:71731. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.040.
[114] Speidel S, Brunl T. Driving and charging patterns of electric vehicles for energy
usage. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;40:97110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2014.07.177.
[115] Azadfar E, Sreeram V, Harries D. The investigation of the major factors
inuencing plug-in electric vehicle driving patterns and charging behaviour.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;42:106576. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2014.10.058.
[116] Dai H, Wei X, Sun Z, Wang D. A novel dual-inductor based charge equalizer for
traction battery cells of electric vehicles. Int J Electr Power Energy Syst
2015;67:62738. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2014.12.053.
[117] Green RC, Wang L, Alam M. The impact of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on
distribution networks: a review and outlook. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2011;15:54453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.08.015.
[118] Markel T. Plug-in electric vehicle infrastructure: a foundation for electried
transportation. MIT Energy Initiat Transp Electr Symp 2010:110.
[119] Wang YW, Lin CC. Locating multiple types of recharging stations for battery-
powered electric vehicle transport. Transp Res Part E Logist Transp Rev
2013;58:7687. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2013.07.003.
[120] Han S, Han S, Aki H. A practical battery wear model for electric vehicle charging
applications. Appl Energy 2014;113:11008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ape-
nergy.2013.08.062.
[121] Duarte GO, Varella RA, Gonalves GA, Farias TL. Eect of battery state of charge
on fuel use and pollutant emissions of a full hybrid electric light duty vehicle. J
Power Sources 2014;246:37786. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpow-
sour.2013.07.103.
[122] Infrastructure de recharge pour vehicule electrique. Schneider Electr; 2014.
http://www.schneider-electric.com/products/fr/fr/ [Accessed 9 September
2014].
[123] Yang J, Sun H. Battery swap station location-routing problem with capacitated
electric vehicles. Comput Oper Res 2014;55:21732. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cor.2014.07.003.
[124] Rao R, Zhang X, Xie J, Ju L. Optimizing electric vehicle users' charging behavior
in battery swapping mode. Appl Energy 2015;155:54759. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.05.125.
[125] Adler JD, Mirchandani PB. Online routing and battery reservations for electric
vehicles with swappable batteries. Transp Res Part B Methodol 2014;70:285302.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2014.09.005.
[126] Armstrong M, El Hajj Moussa C, Adnot J, Galli A, Riviere P. Optimal recharging
strategy for battery-switch stations for electric vehicles in France. Energy Policy
2013;60:56982. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.089.
[127] Better Place The Global Provider of EV Networks and Services; 2014.
[128] Villa JL, Salln J, Llombart A, Sanz JF. Design of a high frequency Inductively
Coupled Power Transfer system for electric vehicle battery charge. Appl Energy
2009;86:35563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2008.05.009.
[129] Kalwar KA, Aamir M, Mekhilef S. Inductively coupled power transfer (ICPT) for
electric vehicle charging a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;47:46275.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.040.
[130] Renault Kangoo ZE. Renault; 2014 https://www.renault.co.uk/vehicles/new-
vehicles/kangoo-ze.html [Accessed 30 August 2014].
[131] 100% Electric Nissan Leaf. NISSAN UK; n.d. http://www.nissan.co.uk/?
Cid=pselectricvehicleUK_enelectricvehiclelocuk & kw=Nissan_leaf [Accessed 7
January 2015].
[132] Omar N, Daowd M, Hegazy O, Al Sakka M, Coosemans T, Van Den Bossche P,
et al. Assessment of lithium-ion capacitor for using in battery electric vehicle and
hybrid electric vehicle applications. Electrochim Acta 2012;86:30515. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2012.03.026.
[133] Ugle R, Li Y, Dhingra A. Equalization integrated online monitoring of health map
and worthiness of replacement for battery pack of electric vehicles. J Power
Sources 2013;223:293305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2012.09.083.
[134] Saw LH, Somasundaram K, Ye Y, Tay aaO. Electro-thermal analysis of Lithium
Iron Phosphate battery for electric vehicles. J Power Sources 2014;249:2318.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.10.052.
[135] kugor B, Deur J. A novel model of electric vehicle eet aggregate battery for
energy planning studies. Energy 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.en-
ergy.2015.05.030.
[136] Beaudet A. Competing pathways for the decarbonisation of road transport: a
comparative analysis of electric and hydrogen vehicles (a thesis submitted for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy). University of London; 2010.
[137] Gaines L, Nelson P. Lithiumion batteries: possible materials issues. Scenario
2009:116.
[138] Mineral Commodity Summaries 2010; 2013.
[139] Mineral Commodity Summaries 2007; 2012.
[140] Thein S, Chang YS. Decision making model for lifecycle assessment of lithium-ion
battery for electric vehicle a case study for smart electric bus project in Korea. J
Power Sources 2014;249:1427. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpow-
sour.2013.10.078.
[141] Evans RK. An abundance of Lithium: Part one; 2012 .
429
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 414430
[142] Evans RK. An abundance of Lithium: Part two; 2011.
[143] Gaines L, Nelson P. Lithium-ion batteries: examining material demand and
recycling issues; 2010.
[144] Fairley P. Speed bumps ahead for electric-vehicle charging. IEEE Spectr
2010;47:134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MSPEC.2010.5372476.
[145] Romo R, Micheloud O. Power quality of actual grids with plug-in electric vehicles
in presence of renewables and micro-grids. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2015;46:189200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.014.
[146] Richardson DB. Electric vehicles and the electric grid: a review of modeling
approaches, Impacts, and renewable energy integration. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2013;19:24754. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.042.
[147] MIT Energy Initiative Symposium. Electrication of the Transportation System.
An MIT Energy Initiat Symp; 2010.
[148] Website NZE. Nissan Zero Emission. NISSAN Mot; 2011 http://www.nissan-
global.com/EN/ZEROEMISSION/ [Accessed 9 February 2015].
[149] Mwasilu F, Justo JJ, Kim EK, Do TD, Jung JW. Electric vehicles and smart grid
interaction: a review on vehicle to grid and renewable energy sources integration.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;34:50116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.rser.2014.03.031.
[150] Grau Unda I, Papadopoulos P, Skarvelis-Kazakos S, Cipcigan LM, Jenkins N,
Zabala E. Management of electric vehicle battery charging in distribution net-
works with multi-agent systems. Electr Power Syst Res 2014;110:1729. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.epsr.2014.01.014.
[151] Marongiu A, Roscher M, Sauer DU. Inuence of the vehicle-to-grid strategy on the
aging behavior of lithium battery electric vehicles. Appl Energy
2014;137:899912. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.06.063.
[152] Citron C-Zero; 2015 http://www.citroen.co.uk/new-cars-and-vans/citroen-
range/citroen-c-zero#/new-cars/car-range/citroen-c-zero/ [Accessed 10 May
2015].
[153] Roadster Features and Specications. TESLA Mot; 2014. http://my.teslamotors.
com/roadster/specs [Accessed 5 August 2014].
[154] Martel F, Kelouwani S, Dub Y, Agbossou K. Optimal economy-based battery
degradation management dynamics for fuel-cell plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. J
Power Sources 2015;274:36781. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpow-
sour.2014.10.011.
[155] Heymans C, Walker SB, Young SB, Fowler M. Economic analysis of second use
electric vehicle batteries for residential energy storage and load-levelling. Energy
Policy 2014;71:2230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.04.016.
[156] Barreras F, Maza M, Lozano A, Bscones S, Roda V, Barranco JE, et al. Design and
development of a multipurpose utility AWD electric vehicle with a hybrid
powertrain based on PEM fuel cells and batteries. Int J Hydrog Energy
2012;37:1536779. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.06.091.
[157] Jarrett A, Kim IY. Inuence of operating conditions on the optimum design of
electric vehicle battery cooling plates. J Power Sources 2014;245:64455. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.06.114.
[158] Juul N. Battery prices and capacity sensitivity: electric drive vehicles. Energy
2012;47:40310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.09.015.
[159] Hwang JJ, Kuo JK, Wu W, Chang WR, Lin CH, Wang SE. Lifecycle performance
assessment of fuel cell/battery electric vehicles. Int J Hydrog Energy
2013;38:343346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.12.148.
[160] Arslan O, Yldz B, Ekin Karaan O. Impacts of battery characteristics, driver
preferences and road network features on travel costs of a plug-in hybrid electric
vehicle (PHEV) for long-distance trips. Energy Policy 2014;74:16878. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.08.015.
[161] Fan L, Khodadadi JM, Pesaran aa. A parametric study on thermal management of
an air-cooled lithium-ion battery module for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. J
Power Sources 2013;238:30112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpow-
sour.2013.03.050.
[162] Park S, Jung D. Battery cell arrangement and heat transfer uid eects on the
parasitic power consumption and the cell temperature distribution in a hybrid
electric vehicle. J Power Sources 2013;227:1918. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jpowsour.2012.11.039.
[163] Reichmuth DS, Lutz AE, Manley DK, Keller JO. Comparison of the technical
potential for hydrogen, battery electric, and conventional light-duty vehicles to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and petroleum consumption in the United
States. Int J Hydrog Energy 2013;38:12008. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhy-
dene.2012.10.047.
[164] Hooper JM, Marco J. Characterising the in-vehicle vibration inputs to the high
voltage battery of an electric vehicle. J Power Sources 2014;245:5109. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.06.150.
[165] Ylomobile La voiture electrique qui se partage. Ylomobile; 2014. https://www.
yelomobile.fr.
[166] Autolib. Accueil; 2014 https://www.autolib.eu/en/ [Accessed 5 March 2014].
[167] Greaves S, Backman H, Ellison AB. An empirical assessment of the feasibility of
battery electric vehicles for day-to-day driving. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract
2014;66:22637. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2014.05.011.
[168] Hodson N, Newman J. A new segmentation for electric vehicles. McKinsey Q;
2009http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/manufacturing/a_new_segmentation_
for_electric_vehicles [Accessed 9 August 2014].
[169] Neubauer J, Wood E. The impact of range anxiety and home, workplace, and
public charging infrastructure on simulated battery electric vehicle lifetime utility.
J Power Sources 2014;257:1220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpow-
sour.2014.01.075.
[170] ASA Adjudication on BMW (UK) Ltd. Advert Stand Auth; 2010. http://www.asa.
org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2010/7/BMW-(UK)-Ltd/TF_ADJ_48837.aspx#.
VUOAQ842JUQ [Accessed 1 September 2014].
A. Mahmoudzadeh Andwari et al.
[171] Bjrnsson L-H, Karlsson S. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles: how individual
movement patterns aect battery requirements, the potential to replace conven-
tional fuels, and economic viability. Appl Energy 2015;143:33647. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.041.
[172] Wegener K, Andrew S, Raatz A, Drder K, Herrmann C. Disassembly of electric
vehicle batteries using the example of the audi Q5 hybrid system. Procedia CIRP
2014;23:15560. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.10.098.
[173] Ahmadi L, Yip A, Fowler M, Young SB, Fraser RA. Environmental feasibility of re-
use of electric vehicle batteries. Sustain Energy Technol Assess 2014;6:6474.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2014.01.006.
[174] Whitehouse C. Carbon accounting for electric vehicle systems. Imperial College
London; 2009.
[175] Notter D, Gauch M, Widmer R, Wger P, Stamp A, Althaus RZ, et al. Contribution
of Li-ion batteries to the environmental impact of electric vehicles. Environ Sci
Technol 2010;44:6550.
[176] Boureima FS, Messagie M, Matheys J, Wynen V, Sergeant N, van Mierlo J, et al.
Comparative LCA of electric, hybrid, LPG and gasoline cars in Belgian context.
World Electr Veh J 2009;3:18.
[177] Neubauer J, Pesaran A, Bae C, Elder R, Cunningham B. Updating united states
advanced battery consortium and department of energy battery technology targets
for battery electric vehicles. J Power Sources 2014;271:61421. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.06.043.
[178] Lpez-Arquillos A, Rubio-Romero JC, Sarez-Cebador M, Pardo-Ferreira MDC.
Comparative risk assessment of vehicle maintenance activities: hybrid, battery
electric, and hydrogen fuel cell cars. Int J Ind Ergon 2015;47:5360. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ergon.2015.02.005.
[179] DECC 2050 Pathways Analysis. Dep Energy Clim Chang; 2012. http://2050-
calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk/ [Accessed 8 May 2015].
[180] Klamor S, Diekmann J, Grtzke M, Kraft V, Kwade A, Winter M, et al. Aging
investigations of a lithium-ion battery electrolyte from a eld-tested hybrid
electric vehicle. J Power Sources 2015;273:838. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jpowsour.2014.09.064.
[181] Gross R, Heptonstall P, Anable J, Greenacre P. E4tech. What policies are eective
at reducing carbon emissions from surface passenger transport?; 2009.
[182] Zhang P, Yan F, Du C. A comprehensive analysis of energy management strategies
430
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 78 (2017) 414430
for hybrid electric vehicles based on bibliometrics. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2015;48:88104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.093.
[183] Khodakarami A, Farahani HF, Aghaei J. Stochastic characterization of electricity
energy markets including plug-in electric vehicles. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2017;69:11222. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.094.
[184] Yang Z, Li K, Foley A. Computational scheduling methods for integrating plug-in
electric vehicles with power systems: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2015;51:396416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.06.007.
[185] Zou Y, Hu X, Ma H, Li SE. Combined State of Charge and State of Health
estimation over lithium-ion battery cell cycle lifespan for electric vehicles. J Power
Sources 2015;273:793803. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.09.146.
[186] IEA. Electric and Plug-in Hybrid Vehicle Roadmap; 2010.
[187] Cordoba-arenas A, Onori S, Guezennec Y, Rizzoni G. Capacity and power fade
PHEV cycle-life model for lithium-ion battery cells containing NMC-LMO positive
electrodes. J Power Sources 2013;278:47383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jpowsour.2014.12.047.
[188] Plug-in car grant eligibility guidance. Dep Transp; 2015.
[189] Redelbach M, zdemir ED, Friedrich HE. Optimizing battery sizes of plug-in
hybrid and extended range electric vehicles for dierent user types. Energy Policy
2014;73:15868. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.05.052.
[190] PricewaterhouseCoopers. Study on urban access restrictions. Final Report. 2010.
[191] Pei L, Zhu C, Wang T, Lu R, Chan CC. Online peak power prediction based on a
parameter and state estimator for lithium-ion batteries in electric vehicles. Energy
2014;66:76678. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.02.009.
[192] He F, Yin Y, Lawphongpanich S. Network equilibrium models with battery electric
vehicles. Transp Res Part B Methodol 2014;67:30619. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.trb.2014.05.010.
[193] Europaweite Initiative Green eMotion soll Elektromobilitt den Weg ebnen. Green
Emot; 2011. http://www.greenemotion-project.eu/upload/pdf/press/german_
kicko_Green_eMmotion_04-01-2011.pdf[Accessed 3 April 2015].
[194] Sun X-H, Yamamoto T, Morikawa T. Stochastic frontier analysis of excess access
to mid-trip battery electric vehicle fast charging. Transp Res Part D Transp
Environ 2015;34:8394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.10.006.
[195] Helms S, Isbrand KB. Project Green eMotion. Green Emot; 2014 http://www.
greenemotion-project.eu [Accessed 3 February 2015].