vehicles. considerably more expensive than a single charging

vehicles. For instance, Zubaryeva et al. 14
stated that availability of a proper number
of charging infrastructure has a significant effect on widespread deployment of
electric vehicles in Europe. Sierzchula et al. 15 also stated that
adding a charging structure per 100,000 residents has twice the impact on the
EV market share in a country than USD 1,000 financial incentives for consumers.

The effect of incentives for development of charging/refueling stations
is specifically more important for FCVs.
While BEVs and PHEVs can be charged at charging points installed at households,
FCVs should be charged at HRSs which are of considerably more expensive than a single
charging point. The balance of incentivizing FCV purchase and incentivizing HRS
development is a chicken and egg problem. On one hand, if there are not enough
FCVs to use a HRS, the profitability of investing on a HRS in the initial stages carries a
high risk because the investment is going to support a limited number of FCVs (meaning a limited number of FCVs will be fueled through that
station), and thus the revenue will also be limited. However, with the
increase in the number of FCVs, the risk for investment in HRSs will
decrease in the long-term.

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


order now

On the other hand, if there are not enough HRSs in a
region, not only people can consider buying a FCV, but also car manufacturers
are reluctant to sell their vehicles in that region as there are not enough infrastructure
to support the refueling of the vehicle. This problem doesn’t apply to BEVs and PHEVs at this scale as BEV, or PHEV owners can install charging points
at their garages at a price of about USD 1200 and charge their vehicles in
their houses.

In the long-term, this challenge would not be an
issue as the cost of hydrogen refueling infrastructure is only 5% of Total Cost
of Ownership (TCO) of a FCV 6. As a result, it can be concluded that at the early stages of
development, the contribution of governments and local authorities for the
development of HRS and decreasing the profitability risk from the investment on
them is crucial.

Table
28  shows BEV, PHEV, and FCV stock in
countries/jurisdictions compared in this work. As it can be seen, in 2016/2017 the number of BEVs and
PHEVs are considerably higher than the number of FCVs in all
countries/jurisdictions considered.         

Table 28. Comparison of number of BEVs, PHEVs, and
FCVs in different countries/jurisdictions

Country

BEV stock

PHEV stock

FCV stock

Japan

86,390 (2016)

64,860 (2016)

1800 (March 2017)

South Korea

10,770 (2016)

440 (2016)

100 (2016)

China

483,190 (2016)

165,580 (2016)

60 (March 2017)

Germany

40,920 (2016)

31,810 (2016)

477 (2017)

France

66,970 (2016)

17,030 (2016)

130 (November 2016)

United Kingdom

31,460 (2016)

54,960 (2016)

28 (Toyota Mirais sold
until March 2017)

Norway

98,880 (2016)

34,380 (2016)

80 (October
2017)

Denmark

8100 (BEVs and PHEVs)

68 (September 2017)

Sweden

8030(2016)

21,290 (2016)

8 (May 2016)

California

139,600 (2016)

128,863 (2016)

1600 (April 2017)

 

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

Another
interesting observation regarding the available data on the stock of different
EVs is that the share of PHEVs has increased in all reviewed countries/jurisdictions
in the years investigated while the share of BEVs in the stock is decreasing. While
PHEV purchases receive purchase subsidies, they also don’t have the problem of
range anxiety or long duration of charging. This issue has led to the interest
of customer for using PHEVs.

Based on the purchase subsidy values, it seems
that generally European countries (except
for Scandinavian countries of Denmark and Norway) tend to support EVs based on
their emissions. Using this method, BEVs and FCVs will receive the same
purchase subsidies. However, Denmark and
Norway alongside the state of California
and all three eastern Asia countries considered in this work provide higher
purchase subsidies for FCVs compared to purchase subsidies for BEVs. Although
some researchers such as Zhang et al. 10 believe that designing incentives based on the amount of CO2 emissions is a good approach, it should be noted that this method of incentivizing is
greatly biased toward BEVs and against FCVs. One
reason for this bias is the price difference between BEVs and FCVs. Table 29 shows the price of selected commercially available BEVs, PHEVs, and
FCVs. As it can be seen in the table, BEVs are
comparable to PHEVs while FCVs are generally more expensive than both BEVs and
PHEVs (All three types of vehicles include a price range, for
instance, EVs may range from USD 30,000 to USD 41000 while PHEVs may range from
USD 33,000 to USD 48,000). Another reason for the bias of allocating purchase
subsidies based on CO2 emissions against FCVs is the deficit of HRSs in a lot of
regions. While there are not enough HRSs in a region to refuel FCVs, there will
be a higher tendency toward buying BEVs if the purchase 

x

Hi!
I'm Owen!

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

Check it out