IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v15y2022i23p9149-d991629.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of the Future of Mobility: The Battery Electric Vehicle Seems Just a Transitory Alternative

Author

Listed:
  • Lázaro V. Cremades

    (Department of Project and Construction Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, 08028 Barcelona, Spain)

  • Lluc Canals Casals

    (Department of Project and Construction Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, 08028 Barcelona, Spain)

Abstract

It is, undoubtedly, a widespread belief that the electric vehicle (EV) is considered sustainable. However, in the manufacturing and retirement phases, EVs do not appear to be as sustainable as internal combustion vehicles (ICVs) and during the use phase, the pollution produced by EVs depends on the source of electricity generation to recharge the batteries. From an economic point of view, EVs do not appear to be competitive compared to ICVs either. However, current market trends push hard on battery EVs (BEV) and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEV). This study aims to analyze which of the possible mobility alternatives has more sense to be considered as the option with higher penetration in the future. To this end, four known mobility technologies (ICVs, PHEVs, BEVs, and hydrogen fuel cell EVs or FCEVs) are compared for a mid-size car using published data, through environmental and techno-economic criteria, by applying the analytic hierarchy process method in an objective manner on multiple scenarios. Putting all criteria together, it seems that the ICV alternative is the one receiving the best results in most of the scenarios, except in the case where the environmental criteria have the greatest weight. The BEV solution has almost always turned out to be the worst alternative, but it is the only choice we have right now.

Suggested Citation

  • Lázaro V. Cremades & Lluc Canals Casals, 2022. "Analysis of the Future of Mobility: The Battery Electric Vehicle Seems Just a Transitory Alternative," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-12, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:23:p:9149-:d:991629
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/23/9149/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/23/9149/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zachary P. Cano & Dustin Banham & Siyu Ye & Andreas Hintennach & Jun Lu & Michael Fowler & Zhongwei Chen, 2018. "Batteries and fuel cells for emerging electric vehicle markets," Nature Energy, Nature, vol. 3(4), pages 279-289, April.
    2. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    3. Ma, Hongrui & Balthasar, Felix & Tait, Nigel & Riera-Palou, Xavier & Harrison, Andrew, 2012. "A new comparison between the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of battery electric vehicles and internal combustion vehicles," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 160-173.
    4. Qiao, Qinyu & Zhao, Fuquan & Liu, Zongwei & He, Xin & Hao, Han, 2019. "Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of Electric Vehicles in China: Combining the vehicle cycle and fuel cycle," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 222-233.
    5. Yash Kotak & Carlos Marchante Fernández & Lluc Canals Casals & Bhavya Satishbhai Kotak & Daniel Koch & Christian Geisbauer & Lluís Trilla & Alberto Gómez-Núñez & Hans-Georg Schweiger, 2021. "End of Electric Vehicle Batteries: Reuse vs. Recycle," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-15, April.
    6. Offer, G.J. & Howey, D. & Contestabile, M. & Clague, R. & Brandon, N.P., 2010. "Comparative analysis of battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid vehicles in a future sustainable road transport system," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 24-29, January.
    7. Ho, William & Ma, Xin, 2018. "The state-of-the-art integrations and applications of the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(2), pages 399-414.
    8. Kirubakaran, A. & Jain, Shailendra & Nema, R.K., 2009. "A review on fuel cell technologies and power electronic interface," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 13(9), pages 2430-2440, December.
    9. Li, Yanfei & Kimura, Shigeru, 2021. "Economic competitiveness and environmental implications of hydrogen energy and fuel cell electric vehicles in ASEAN countries: The current and future scenarios," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 148(PB).
    10. Roberta Olindo & Nathalie Schmitt & Joost Vogtländer, 2021. "Life Cycle Assessments on Battery Electric Vehicles and Electrolytic Hydrogen: The Need for Calculation Rules and Better Databases on Electricity," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-22, May.
    11. Archsmith, James & Kendall, Alissa & Rapson, David, 2015. "From Cradle to Junkyard: Assessing the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Benefits of Electric Vehicles," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 72-90.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Das, Himadry Shekhar & Tan, Chee Wei & Yatim, A.H.M., 2017. "Fuel cell hybrid electric vehicles: A review on power conditioning units and topologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 268-291.
    2. Nenming Wang & Guwen Tang, 2022. "A Review on Environmental Efficiency Evaluation of New Energy Vehicles Using Life Cycle Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-35, March.
    3. Gianmarco Gottardo & Andrea Basso Peressut & Silvia Colnago & Saverio Latorrata & Luigi Piegari & Giovanni Dotelli, 2023. "LCA of a Proton Exchange Membrane Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Considering Different Power System Architectures," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-19, September.
    4. Manjunath, Archana & Gross, George, 2017. "Towards a meaningful metric for the quantification of GHG emissions of electric vehicles (EVs)," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 423-429.
    5. Buberger, Johannes & Kersten, Anton & Kuder, Manuel & Eckerle, Richard & Weyh, Thomas & Thiringer, Torbjörn, 2022. "Total CO2-equivalent life-cycle emissions from commercially available passenger cars," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    6. Morton, Craig & Anable, Jillian & Yeboah, Godwin & Cottrill, Caitlin, 2018. "The spatial pattern of demand in the early market for electric vehicles: Evidence from the United Kingdom," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 119-130.
    7. Roberto Capata, 2018. "Urban and Extra-Urban Hybrid Vehicles: A Technological Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-38, October.
    8. Robin Smit & Daniel William Kennedy, 2022. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Performance of Electric and Fossil-Fueled Passenger Vehicles with Uncertainty Estimates Using a Probabilistic Life-Cycle Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-29, March.
    9. Fuquan Zhao & Kangda Chen & Han Hao & Zongwei Liu, 2020. "Challenges, Potential and Opportunities for Internal Combustion Engines in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-15, June.
    10. Mokesioluwa Fanoro & Mladen Božanić & Saurabh Sinha, 2022. "A Review of the Impact of Battery Degradation on Energy Management Systems with a Special Emphasis on Electric Vehicles," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-29, August.
    11. Halder, Pobitra & Babaie, Meisam & Salek, Farhad & Shah, Kalpit & Stevanovic, Svetlana & Bodisco, Timothy A. & Zare, Ali, 2024. "Performance, emissions and economic analyses of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    12. Xiao, Xu & Chen, Zi-Rui & Nie, Pu-Yan, 2020. "Analysis of two subsidies for EVs: Based on an expanded theoretical discrete-choice model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    13. Huang, Xiaohui & Huang, Qi & Cao, Huajun & Yan, Wanbin & Cao, Le & Zhang, Qiongzhi, 2023. "Optimal design for improving operation performance of electric construction machinery collaborative system: Method and application," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(PA).
    14. Julia Wenger & Stefan Pichler & Annukka Näyhä & Tobias Stern, 2022. "Practitioners’ Perceptions of Co-Product Allocation Methods in Biorefinery Development—A Case Study of the Austrian Pulp and Paper Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-16, February.
    15. Li, Chengjiang & Jia, Tingwen & Wang, Honglei & Wang, Xiaolin & Negnevitsky, Michael & Hu, Yu-jie & Zhao, Gang & Wang, Liang, 2023. "Assessing the prospect of deploying green methanol vehicles in China from energy, environmental and economic perspectives," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 263(PE).
    16. Jani Das, 2022. "Comparative life cycle GHG emission analysis of conventional and electric vehicles in India," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(11), pages 13294-13333, November.
    17. Sebastian Wolff & Moritz Seidenfus & Karim Gordon & Sergio Álvarez & Svenja Kalt & Markus Lienkamp, 2020. "Scalable Life-Cycle Inventory for Heavy-Duty Vehicle Production," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-22, July.
    18. Anqi Chen & Shibing You, 2022. "The Fuel Cycle Carbon Reduction Effects of New Energy Vehicles: Empirical Evidence Based on Regional Data in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-17, November.
    19. Dongmei Huang & Weijun Li & Xikun Chang & Yunliang Tan, 2019. "Key Factors Identification and Risk Assessment for the Stability of Deep Surrounding Rock in Coal Roadway," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-15, August.
    20. Felipe Romero-Perdomo & Miguel Ángel González-Curbelo, 2023. "Integrating Multi-Criteria Techniques in Life-Cycle Tools for the Circular Bioeconomy Transition of Agri-Food Waste Biomass: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-27, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:23:p:9149-:d:991629. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.