Electric vehicles: Literature review of technology costs and carbon emissions

Electric vehicles: Literature review of technology costs and carbon emissions

Loading
Loading Social Plug-ins...
Language: English
Save to myLibrary Download PDF
Go to Page # Page of 23

Description: Furthermore, the application of fuel cells and batteries in HFCEVs, BEVs, and PHEVs is approximated using a bottom-up cost approach. Overall, the different power train costs largely depend on battery and fuel cell costs. This paper concludes that the costs of all power trains will decrease significantly between 2015 and 2030 (Figure S 1).

As shown, power trains for PHEVs will achieve about a 50% cost reduction, compared with approximate cost reductions of 60% for BEVs and 70% for HFCEVs. Costs for hydrogen and electricity chargers are estimated separately. .

 
Author: Paul Wolfram, Nic Lutsey  | Visits: 302 | Page Views: 449
Domain:  Green Tech Category: Transportation 
Upload Date:
Link Back:
Short URL: https://www.wesrch.com/energy/pdfTR1SVV000WNAZ
Loading
Loading...



px *        px *

* Default width and height in pixels. Change it to your required dimensions.

 
Contents:
WORKING PAPER 2016-14

Electric vehicles: Literature review of
technology costs and carbon emissions
Authors: Paul Wolfram and Nic Lutsey
Date: 15 July 2016
Keywords: Electric vehicles, well-to-wheel greenhouse gas emissions, technology costs, lithium-ion battery,
fuel cell, plug-in hybrid, renewable electricity

1. SUMMARY

The collected cost data is used to
estimate the technology cost for
automotive lithium-ion (Li-ion)
batteries and fuel cells. The cost
of battery packs for BEVs declined
to an estimated €250 per kWh for
industry leaders in 2015. Further
cost reductions down to as low as
€130–€180 per kWh are anticipated
in the 2020–25 time frame. The costs
of fuel cell systems are also expected
to decrease considerably, but cost
estimates are highly uncertain.

ICE credit

Furthermore, the application of fuel
cells and batteries in HFCEVs, BEVs,
and PHEVs is approximated using a
bottom-up cost approach. Overall,
the different power train costs largely
depend on battery and fuel cell costs.
This paper concludes that the costs
of all power trains will decrease significantly between 2015 and 2030
(Figure S 1). As shown, power trains
for PHEVs will achieve about a 50%
cost reduction, compared with
approximate cost reductions of 60%
for BEVs and 70% for HFCEVs. Costs
for hydrogen and electricity chargers
are estimated separately.

EV
-1
0
0
B
EV
-1
50
B
EV
-2
0
0
B
EV
-3
0
0
PH
EV
-1
0
PH
EV
-2
0
PH
EV
-3
0
PH
EV
-4
0
PH
EV
H
-6
FC
0
EV
(t
yp
H
FC
)
EV
(l
ow
)

The European new vehicle CO 2
re g u l a t i o n ( w i t h a m a n d a t o r y
target value of 95 grams of CO2 per
kilometer by 2021 for passenger
cars) is currently in the process
of being extended to 2025. In this
context, one of the key questions is
at what point a significant uptake
of the electric vehicle market is
to be expected. In order to help
i n fo r m t h i s d e b a te a b o u t h ow
electric vehicle technology could fit

in a lower-carbon 2020–2030 new
vehicle fleet in Europe, this paper
focuses on collecting, analyzing,
a n d a g g re g a t i n g t h e ava i l a b l e
research literature on the underlying
technology costs and carbon
emissions. In terms of technologies,
this paper concentrates on the three
electric propulsion systems: battery
electric vehicles (BEVs), plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), and
hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles
(HFCEVs).

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and
energy demand for electric and conventional vehicles are presented on a
well-to-wheel (WTW) basis, capturing
all direct and indirect emissions of
fuel and electricity production and
vehicle operation. The results are

25,000

Cost increment in €

15,000

Total 2015
Total 2020

H2 storage

Total 2025

Other EV parts

20,000

Fuel cell
Battery

Total 2030

Motor
Transmission

10,000

5,000

0

B

IC

EV

-5,000

Figure S 1. Cost breakdown of different power trains for a 2030 lower medium car. Circles
show total incremental costs over a 2010 internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV).

Acknowledgements: The authors thank Peter Mock, Uwe Tietge, John German, Vicente Franco, and Joshua Miller from ICCT for reviewing and
contributing to this paper, which greatly improved its quality.

© INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION, 2016

WWW.THEICCT.ORG

ELECTRIC VEHICLES: LITERATURE REVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY COSTS AND CARBON EMISSIONS

based on former analyses, and are
updated and refined with real-world
fuel consumption levels. Real-world
fuel consumption is commonly about
20%–40% higher than official typeapproval measurements. Finally,
WTW estimates for electric and
conventional vehicles are put in the
context of the 2021 CO2 standard for
European passenger vehicles.
It is found that carbon emissions
of BEVs using European grid-mix
electricity are about half of average
European vehicle emissions, whereas
HFCEVs and PHEVs have a lower
emissions reduction potential. In the
2020 context, electric vehicle WTW
emissions are expected to continue
offering greater carbon benefits due
to more efficient power trains and
increasing low-carbon electric power.
A lower-carbon grid and higher
power train efficiency by 2020 could
cut average electric vehicle emissions
by one-third again.
H o w e v e r, t h e e x p e c t e d c o s t
re d u c t i o n s a n d p o t e n t i a l C O 2
emission cuts will not be achieved
without targeted policy intervention. More stringent CO2 standards,
and fiscal and non-fiscal incentives
for electric vehicles, can help the
electric vehicle market to grow
and costs to fall. Also, efforts need
to be combined with activities to
decarbonize the grid, or emission
reductions will not be as great as
they could be. Although the analysis
is focused on the European context,
similar dynamics with electric vehicle
technology, policy, and market development are prevalent across major
markets in North America and Asia.

2. BACKGROUND
Governments in Europe and other
world regions are focused on greatly
reducing the transport sector ’s
carbon emissions. The European
Union (EU) and its member states
are using vehicle and fuel regulations,
substantial financial and nonfinancial incentives for consumers, and

Table 1. Estimated total vehicle fleet as of 2013, EV passenger car fleet as of 2015, and
EVSE stock as of 2014 (EIA, 2015; Mock, 2015; EV Sales, 2016; AFDC, 2015; OICA, 2016)

Region
World

Estimated total
fleet(a) (2013)

Estimated passenger
electric vehicle
fleet(b) (2015)

Estimated EVSE
stock(c) (2014)

1.2 billion

1.2 million

110,000

United States

252 million

400,000

31,000(d)

California

30 million

190,000

9,000(d)

Japan

77 million

134,000

12,000

China

127 million

290,000

30,000

India

25 million

3,000(e)

300

EU-28

295 million

340,000

50,000

Netherlands

9 million

46,000

12,000

Norway

3 million

75,000

6,000

France

38 million

57,000

9,000

Germany

47 million

51,000

3,000

UK

36 million

49,000

3,000

Italy

42 million

6,000

3,000

3 million

8,000

3,000

Denmark

(a) ncludes passenger cars, sport-utility vehicles, pickup trucks, minivans, and two- and
I
three-wheelers.
(b) ncludes passenger cars and sport-utility vehicles, but excludes lightweight trucks, quadriI
cycles, utility vehicles, buses, and two-wheelers; includes cumulative sales/stock until 2014
(from EIA, 2015 or Mock, 2015, plus 2015 sales from EV Sales, 2016); retirement numbers are
assumed to be negligible.
(c) EVSE is counted by semipublic or public charging points or outlets, not by charging stations;

private charging is not included.
(d) 2015.
(e) 2014.

other policies to replace petroleum
with lower-carbon alternatives. The
infrastructure for alternative fuels
is also being funded to promote
lower-carbon mobility. One of the
most difficult questions is when EV
technology will improve to the extent
that it becomes a mainstream competitive option for consumers and
automobile manufacturers facing
carbon emission requirements.

2.1. MARKET OVERVIEW
The first EVs were introduced as early
as 1838—or 52 years before internal
combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs)
entered the market. Despite recent
growing interest, EVs have remained
a relatively small market until today
(IEA, 2015). However, the global
share of EVs is expected to increase
significantly, driven by substantial
battery technology improvements
and a variety of policies that are

2 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 

accelerating the development of the
electric vehicle market. Overall, the
market has grown from just hundreds
of EV sales in 2010 to more than
500,000 sales worldwide in 2015 (EV
Sales, 2016). The early development
of markets for electric vehicles is
seen predominantly in parts of China,
Europe, and the United States, where
electric vehicle support policies are
helping promote the technology,
while costs are still relatively high
compared with conventional vehicles.
Table 1 shows the global and regional
estimated stock of BEV and PHEV
passenger cars as of 2015, and electric
vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) as
of 2014. EVSE includes semipublic or
public charging points or outlets, but
not private charging points.
Most of the electric vehicles on the
road today are registered in the
United States, with about half of those
in the state of California. The United

WORKING PAPER 2016-14

ELECTRIC VEHICLES: LITERATURE REVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY COSTS AND CARBON EMISSIONS

States also has the largest number of
electric vehicle charging points. The
Netherlands is the European country
with the highest electric vehicle
passenger car and charging-plug
stock in terms of absolute sales. The
following countries have achieved
relatively high market sales shares
of passenger electric vehicles, as a
percentage of all 2014 passenger
vehicle sales: Norway (13.7%), the
Netherlands (3.9%), Sweden (1.5%)
(Mock, 2015), and the United States
(1.5%) (Lutsey, 2015b). Most other
major automobile markets have EV
sales shares at or below 1%.

3. TYPES OF ELECTRIC
DRIVETRAINS
3.1. BEVs
Pure battery electric vehicles (BEVs)
are also referred to as battery-only
electric vehicles (BOEVs). BEVs have
no engine and are propelled by electricity that comes from one or several
onboard high-energy batteries.
Modern models use a regenerative braking system to save energy.
Examples include the Renault Zoe
and the Nissan Leaf. The Zoe has a
22 kWh Li-ion battery, and an energy
consumption of 14.6 kWh per 100 km,
which yields a range of about 140 km
to 210 km per battery charge on the
New European Driving Cycle (NEDC).
The 2015 Leaf comes with a 24 kWh
battery (plus a 30 KWh option for
the 2016 model), and an official consumption of 15 kWh per 100 km.

3.2. PHEVs
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles
(PHEVs) allow electric driving on
batteries (in charge-depleting mode),
but also conventional combustionfueled driving (in charge-sustaining
mode). Usually, they are equipped
with an electric motor and a highenergy battery, which can be charged
from the power grid. Modern PHEVs
can be driven in electric mode
over varying distances before the

WORKING PAPER 2016-14

combustion engine is required. In
electric-driving mode, the energy
efficiency of the propulsion system
is much higher, and is comparable
to that of a BEV. Available models
include the Chevrolet Volt in U.S.
markets (which is the Opel Ampera
in EU markets), and the Toyota
Prius Plug-in Hybrid. The 2015 Opel
Ampera uses a 16 kWh Li-ion battery
and consumes 16.9 kWh per 100 km
in electric mode on the NEDC. The
2015 Chevrolet Volt has a 16.5 kWh
battery, and the 2016 model has an
18.4 kWh battery.

4. BATTERY PRODUCTION
PHEVs and BEVs use similar batteries,
with Li-ion being the most common
chemistry. There are two primary
ways to extract the lithium used in
batteries: mining spodumene and
petalite ore using evaporation ponds
on salt lakes. The majority of lithium
is obtained from brine operation
(USGS, 2015).
Th e b at te r y syste m i s t h e key
technology of electric vehicles and
defines their range and performance
characteristics. The battery works
like a transducer by turning chemical
energy into electrical energy. Li-ion
is expected to be the dominant
chemistry for BEVs and PHEVs for
the foreseeable future, as most
research is done in the field of Li-ion
batteries. They provide relatively high
power and energy for a given weight
or size, and can significantly reduce
costs compared with other battery
concepts. Energy density of the
battery pack is estimated to roughly
double, up to about 300 Wh per kg,
between 2007 and 2030 (Kromer
& Heywood, 2007; Ricardo-AEA,
2015; NAS, 2013). Also, they have a
relatively long life cycle and low selfdischarging losses. One of their few
drawbacks is their sensitivity to overcharging, which is why they require a
battery management system.
Other automotive battery concepts
include nickel-metal hydride (Ni-MH),

sodium-nickel chloride (Na/NiCl2),
and non-electrochemical alternatives
such as supercapacitors, which allow
fast charging but provide low energy
density. As a result, batteries with
higher energy and power densities
are being developed, such as lithiumair (Li-air), lithium-metal or lithiumsulphur (Li-S), but these are far from
commercialization (Cookson, 2015;
Hacker, Harthan, Matthes & Zimmer,
2009). Li-air batteries may reach
energy densities of up to 11,680 Wh
per kg (Imanishi & Yamamoto, 2014),
which approximates the energetic
content of gasoline.

5. HFCEVs
HFCEVs are powered by a fuel cell,
which generates electricity from
hydrogen and air. Electricity from the
fuel cell directly powers the electric
motor driving the wheels, and can
also be used to recharge the battery
pack if necessary. Modern fuel cell
vehicles include a battery pack,
which is used to capture regenerative
braking energy and is also used to
assist with acceleration when the fuel
cell stack is warming up. The battery
size is usually similar to or a bit larger
than that of hybrid electric vehicles
(HEVs). HFCEVs operate at a higher
conversion efficiency than ICEVs, but
have a high cost increment. Refueling
HFCEVs is considerably quicker than
charging batteries. Commercially
available models are the Toyota Mirai
and Hyundai’s Tucson in the United
States, or ix35 in Europe. The 2015
Mirai offers an official drive-cycle
range of about 480 km, a 114 kW fuel
cell stack, and a 113 kW electric motor
(Hydrogen Cars Now, 2016c). The
Tucson has a battery power output of
24 kW and a 100 kW fuel cell system
(Hydrogen Cars Now, 2016b).

5.1. FUEL CELL SYSTEM
The fuel cell system is the key
technology of HFCEVs. It principally
consists of a fuel cell stack and a
range of supporting hardware, which

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 3

ELECTRIC VEHICLES: LITERATURE REVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY COSTS AND CARBON EMISSIONS

is also referred to as balance of plant
(BOP). Several cells sit in one cell
stack. The main type of fuel cell
stack used for vehicles is the polymer-electrolyte or proton-exchange
m e m b ra n e ( P E M ) . H yd ro g e n i s
stored in an onboard storage tank,
which is analogous to a fuel tank for
ICEVs. With the technology currently
available, hydrogen is stored as a
compressed gas.
Electricity is produced in the fuel cell
through an anode-cathode principle
similar to a battery. Hydrogen comes
from the onboard storage tank and
fuels the anodes, and oxygen comes
from the surroundings and fuels the
cathodes. Electrons from the hydrogen
are forced to follow an external circuit,
creating a flow of electricity.
The energy efficiency of fuel cells
is between that of batteries for
BEVs and combustion engines for
ICEVs, and has improved slightly in
recent years. A moderate increase
in energy efficiency from 53% to
55% (midrange), or 57% (which is
optimistic), is expected at the stack
level between 2010 and 2030 (NAS,
2013). However, manufacturers are
expected to prioritize cost improvements over efficiency in their future
development of fuel cell technology.

6. HYDROGEN
PRODUCTION
Hydrogen can be produced using a
range of different methods, including
electrolysis and reforming. Currently,
hydrogen is produced mainly from
natural gas reforming on a small
scale in small generators. Other
generation pathways include water
electrolysis or biofuels reforming.
Future potential large-scale facilities
can produce low-cost hydrogen using
several methods, for example natural
gas reforming or coal gasification
(Edwards, Larivé & Beziat, 2011). The
lowest cost production of hydrogen,
which is also being used by industry,
is currently based on fossil fuels. For

instance, 95% of hydrogen production
in the United States is based on
natural gas (U.S. DOE, 2016).
A new development being explored
i s co m b i n i n g e l e c t ro l ys i s w i t h
renewable wind and solar energy
generation. Such developments
a l l ow hyd ro g e n p ro d u c t i o n o r
charging EVs to offer viable synergistic ways for storing intermittent
wind and solar power.

7. CHARGING AND
REFUELING
INFRASTRUCTURE
There are three types of charging
infrastructure for BEVs and PHEVs.
Level 1 charging points provide
alternate current power to the
vehicle via a standard low-power
110 volt circuit, similar to those used
in households in the United States
or Japan. With these slow-charging
points, more than 20 hours of charging
are required to fully charge a 24 kWh
battery. Residential or public Level 2
charging points in the United States
provide alternate current power via
a 240 volt (and 30 amp) circuit, and
can thus cut charging time by about
half. Level 2 charging via a 230 volt
(and 15 amp) outlet is common in
households in the EU and most other
countries. Electrical panel upgrades
are necessary in the United States
to reach the same voltage. Level 3
charging points convert alternate
current line voltage to a high-voltage
direct current. Plugged into such a
fast-charging point, a battery can be
charged up to 80% (which is the recommended maximum level) within
half an hour (NAS, 2013). However, the
investment cost of Level 3 chargers is
much higher than those for Level 1
and 2 (see section 10.5).
Several car manufacturers, such as
Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, and Daimler,
have already introduced HFCEVs, but
primarily in Europe, Asia, California,
and Hawaii where the infrastructure
exists. Approximately 140 hydrogen

4 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 

fuel stations exist in Europe, with
about 18 (AFDC, 2015) to 48 (LBS,
2016) in the United States, which is
considerably lower than the number
of electricity charging stations. The
European countries with the most
stations are Germany (41), Italy (21),
the United Kingdom (20), Denmark
(14), and Norway (10) (Hydrogen
Cars Now, 2016a). These numbers
vary by source (e.g., compared with
LBS, 2016). Germany plans to have an
additional 400 stations in operation
by 2023 (H2 Mobility, 2015).
Research has been done on indirect
hydrogen generation from a liquid
fuel onboard reformer, as an alternative to the costly hydrogen infrastructure. Vehicles that are equipped with
such small-scale reformers are able to
convert gasoline, methanol, naphtha,
or even diesel fuel into hydrogen,
which is then directly fed to the fuel
cell (Edwards, Hass, Larivé, Lonza,
Maas & Rickeard, 2014). However,
such onboard hydrogen production
is more energy- and GHG-intensive
than drawing on external hydrogen
production, and the reformers are
also expensive and take up a lot of
space. As a result, all manufacturers have abandoned development of
onboard reformers.

8. CURRENT COSTS
8.1. BEVs
Even though a BEV has no engine,
which implies significant cost savings
compared with PHEVs, substantial
costs arise from the large battery
packs currently required. In a study
by Ricardo-AEA (2015) it is assumed
that the battery pack determines
about 75% of BEV power train cost,
due to the relatively high battery
cost. The authors of the study
calculate additional manufacturing
costs of about €12,400 for a lower
medium passenger car in 2013, with
a 24.9 kWh battery at €375 per kWh.
The authors do not specify assumed
production volumes for BEVs, PHEVs,

WORKING PAPER 2016-14

ELECTRIC VEHICLES: LITERATURE REVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY COSTS AND CARBON EMISSIONS

A bottom-up cost approach is used in
this paper to estimate the component
costs associated with different
electric power trains over a conventional vehicle. Using the BEV cost
figures provided by Ricardo-AEA, and
updating with a more recent battery
cost estimate of €250 per kWh (see
section 10.1), leads to a cost addition
of about €5,700 for a BEV-100 (with
a drive-cycle range of about 100
miles/160 km) over a conventional
passenger car (see Figure 1). Cost
subtractions are made for the nonexisting combustion engine, exhaust
pipe, and conventional transmission
and are referred to as ICE credits.
1

Throughout this paper, an average currency
exchange rate of €0.79 per US$1 is
assumed, based on averaging the average
annual exchange rates for 2009 to 2014,
and the actual exchange rate from
October 1, 2015 (€0.89 per US$1).

WORKING PAPER 2016-14

25,000

Fuel cell

Total 2015

Battery

17,650

20,000

H2 storage
Other EV parts
11,650

15,000

Motor
Transmission

8,650

ICE credit

10,000 5,650

7,390

5,000

3,001

3,892

4,816

5,707

0

0
EV
-3
0
0
PH
EV
-1
0
PH
EV
-2
0
PH
EV
-3
0
PH
EV
-4
0
PH
EV
-6
0
H
FC
EV
(t
yp
)
B

0

0

EV
-2
B

EV
-1
5
B

EV
-1
0

0

-5,000

B

Based on an assumed production
scale of 300,000 units per year and
a 37.6 kWh-rated battery at €356
per kWh, the National Academy of
Sciences estimates a similar cost
incremental of a BEV-130 (130-miles
test-cycle range) of about €12,6001
over a €20,800 (small to lower
medium segment) conventional
car in 2010 (NAS, 2013). This incremental was estimated to drop to
€9,300–€8,200 by 2015, mainly due
to declining battery costs down to
€280–€300 per kWh, and a smaller
battery size of 34.4 kWh. The authors
assume the battery to have a smaller
size due to increasingly lower electric
energy consumption of the vehicle.
Similarly, the present work assumes
a downsizing of 1% per year for the
motor and the fuel cell system, and
2% per year for the battery pack for
all future years, according to the
midrange scenario presented in the
NAS study (see section 10.4).

23,193

Cost increment in €

and HFCEVs. The report, however,
suggests that lower production
volumes (in the low thousands) are
assumed for HFCEVs, with a significantly higher scale for BEVs (in the
mid-ten thousands).

Figure 1. Cost breakdown of different electric power trains for a 2015 lower medium
car. Assumed battery production volume is in the mid-ten thousand units, and fuel cell
system production is about 1,000.

At the mentioned battery pack price,
the battery pack determines about
68% of power train cost. Assuming a
BEV with a range of 300 miles/480
km and a 72 kWh battery results in
a cost increment of about €17,700
(with an increasing battery share up
to 86%). This calculation assumes
that all other specifications, such as
engine power, remain constant for
the BEV-100, -150, -200 and -300
(see Table A 6 and Table A 7 in the
Annex for details).
For 2015 battery pack costs, the latest
estimates are taken into account,
arriving at €250 per kWh, as outlined
in section 10.1. This estimate is in line
with findings by Nykvist and Nilsson
(2015), who estimate €240 per kWh
for leading car manufacturers such as
Tesla or Renault-Nissan, producers of
50,000 units or more per year. It also
largely agrees with the cost of the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE)-funded
batteries of €230 per kWh (Faguy,
2015). A U.S. consultancy (Bain &
Company, 2015) also estimated €260
per kWh in 2015.

8.2. PHEVs
The National Academy of Sciences
assumes that incremental car costs
of a 2015 PHEV-30 (with a 30-mile or
50-km drive-cycle range on electric
energy) range between €5,100 and
€5,800 over a conventional ICEV
(NAS, 2013). The authors assume
a production of 300,000 units per
year, and a battery size of 9.8 kWh
at €356–€375 per kWh. Ricardo-AEA
assumes much higher additional
manufacturing costs of about €9,900
for a lower medium PHEV-30 in 2013,
with an assumed 10.2 kWh-rated
battery at ~€790 per kWh (but
without clarifying production scale).
PHEV cost figures provided by
Ricardo-AEA are used in this paper
and updated with an assumed PHEV
battery cost of €330 per kWh (€250
per kWh as estimated in section 10.1,
plus €80 per kWh incremental cost
of PHEV batteries over BEV batteries,
as pointed out by the NAS study). A
simple bottom-up cost calculation
taking this battery price into account
leads to a total cost increment of
about €3,000 to €7,400 over a conventional passenger car, depending

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 5

ELECTRIC VEHICLES: LITERATURE REVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY COSTS AND CARBON EMISSIONS

on battery size or electric range
(see Figure 1). A 16 kWh battery
is assumed for a PHEV-60 (with a
60-mile or 96-km electric drivecycle range), and is scaled down
accordingly for a PHEV with a lower
range. For simplicity’s sake, all other
specifications are assumed to remain
equal. See Table A 6 and Table A 7
in the Annex for details. Cost subtractions for the smaller combustion
engine are assumed to be negligible.

8.3. HFCEV
Current fuel cell production is
considerably lower than battery
production. Toyota produced 700
fuel cell vehicles in 2015 (Toyota,
2015), whereas most BEV manufacturers produced more than 25,000
units in the same year. The lower
production scale increases costs.
Ricardo-AEA estimates additional
manufacturing costs of HFCEVs over
a 2013 conventional ICEV at about
€52,270, assuming a production
volume in the low thousands. The
authors assume fuel cell costs at
€600 per kW (fuel cell size is not
specified), and a 1.4 kWh battery at
about €1,500 per kWh. This suggests
significantly higher costs compared
with BEVs and PHEVs. Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (ORNL, 2013)
estimates a 2015 HFCEV power train
to cost an additional €30,100 at a
production volume of 20,000 units
per year, and an 85 kW fuel cell stack
at €220 per kW. NAS estimates a car
increment of only €5,000–€5,500
over an ICEV (as of 2010). The
authors assume 2010 costs of the
fuel cell to be about €40 per kW,
due to a hypothetical large-scale
production of 300,000 units per
year. This would imply a total cost
of about €3,600 for a 90 kW fuel
cell. HFCEV batteries are assumed to
cost about €1,010 per kWh in 2010,
and €770–€780 per kWh in 2015.
According to NAS, the fuel cell
determines about 50%–60% of
the costs for the whole car, while
Ricardo-AEA assumes costs to be

about 85% of the power train (at
lower production volumes). The
relatively small battery of about 1.4
kWh only contributes to about 4% of
the cost increment.
As done above for BEVs and PHEVs,
a simple bottom-up cost estimate
for HFCEVs is performed based on
figures provided by Ricardo-AEA,
and updated by using recent DOE
(U.S. DOE, 2014) fuel cell system cost
estimates for a production volume
of 1,000 units (€225 per kW power
output) and battery cost estimates
from the NAS study. Because battery
costs have declined much faster
than previously expected, the cost
estimate for 2020 batteries from
the NAS study is assumed for 2015
(€632 per kWh energy storage). 2
These modifications lead to an
HFCEV cost increment of about
€23,200, which is roughly half the
Ricardo-AEA figure. Cost credits for
the non-existing combustion engine,
exhaust pipe, and conventional
transmission are subtracted from
the HFCEV power train costs (as has
been done for the BEV). Moving to
a production volume of 10,000 units
at €83 per kW power output (as in
U.S. DOE, 2014) would cut the cost
increment by half again, down to
€10,200. These simple calculations
assume that the specifications of the
components remain constant for the
sake of simplicity. See Table A 6 and
Table A 7 for more details.
A simple uncertainty evaluation
is performed by varying costs of
the fuel cell systems and battery
packs, which both have the highest
influence on total costs, by ±20%. The
result on power train cost (excluding
ICE credits) varies between ±5% to
±17%. As expected, the PHEV-10 is
at the low end of that range, and
the BEV-300 (±17%) and the HFCEV
(±16%) are at the high end.
2

High-power batteries, as used for HEVs
and HFCEVs, are much more costly than
high-energy batteries used for BEVs and
PHEVs, as they require higher power
density and different characteristics

6 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 

9. CURRENT ENERGY USE
AND EMISSIONS
Energy consumption of vehicles is
typically measured on drive cycles.
Accordingly, the BEV Nissan Leaf
has a consumption of 15 kWh per
100 km on the NEDC. With 14.6 kWh
per 100 km, the Renault Zoe has a
comparable consumption. The PHEV
Opel Ampera consumes 16.9 kWh per
100 km in electric mode, and 1.2 L of
gasoline per 100 km in combustion
mode. Real-world or on-road fuel
efficiencies are usually considerably
lower than driving-cycle efficiencies
(Tietge, Zacharof, Mock, Franco,
German, Bandivadekar, Ligterink &
Lambrecht, 2015).
More comprehensive figures for the
energy requirements and emissions
of electric and conventional vehicles
may be achieved using well-to-wheel
(WTW) analysis. WTW analysis is a
technique to account for all direct
and indirect emissions and energy
requirements during the whole life
cycle of a fuel. WTW analyses are
usually composed of a well-to-tank
(WTT) and a tank-to-wheel (TTW)
fraction. WTT includes fuel and electricity production, and TTW includes
vehicle operation. Vehicle production
and recycling is usually not included.
Even though WTT analyses capture
direct and indirect emissions and
energy requirements of different
fuels, results can vary widely, because
the ISO 14040 and 14044 life-cycle
assessment standards only provide
general accounting guidelines. Also,
different studies may use different
assumptions on vehicle lifetime,
battery size, distance traveled over
the lifetime, the GHG intensity of
the electricity mix, and the usage
of different models and methods.
In addition, WTW studies tend to
omit the mentioned real-world fuel
efficiencies.
Figure 2 shows WTW GHG emissions
and energy use of the three depicted
electric power trains compared
with conventional and hybridized

WORKING PAPER 2016-14

ELECTRIC VEHICLES: LITERATURE REVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY COSTS AND CARBON EMISSIONS

The energy efficiency of the electric
drivetrain is up to 66%, compared
with ICEVs with 14%–19%. HFCEVs
are characterized by a conversion
efficiency of up to 42% (Lutsey, 2012).
The German Aerospace Center (DLR,
2015), on the other hand, estimates
the energy efficiency of BEVs at
60%–80%, including charging losses
and self-discharge of the battery.
Results from Figure 2 are based
on a thorough WTW analysis by
the European Commission’s Joint
Research Centre (Edwards, Larivé, &
Beziat, 2011; Edwards, Hass, Larivé,
Lonza, Maas & Rickeard, 2014), but
are updated by taking into account
real-world fuel and electric energy
consumption levels, as explained
in the following. The authors of the
analyses simulate a conventional
European reference vehicle in the
lower medium passenger car segment.
Based on this baseline vehicle, further
simulations are performed to reflect
different electric power train configurations. All modeled results are
based on official NEDC consumption
levels. However, earlier research has
shown that official type-approval fuel
consumption levels of ICEVs were
about 24% lower than actual on-road
fuel consumption in 2010 (Tietge et
al., 2015). The average observed discrepancy for HEVs has been even
higher, with 41%. In this paper, the

WORKING PAPER 2016-14

ALL POWER TRAINS, 2010

250

PHEV, 2009 EU grid mix
BEV, 2009 EU grid mix

WTW GHGE (g CO2e/km)

ones. It can be seen that ICEVs have
the highest emissions and energy
intensity. More efficient hybrid
electric vehicles (HEVs) can lower
energy use and GHG emissions substantially down to 155 g CO2e per km
for diesel, respectively 161 g CO2e per
km for gasoline. Taking only typical
electricity conversion pathways into
account (grid-mix electricity for BEVs
and PHEVs, natural gas reforming for
HFCEVs), it can be seen that BEV
power trains offer the highest energy
use and GHG emission-abatement
potential. Using the EU electricity
grid mix, BEVs can save 37% GHG
emissions over diesel ICEVs, and 46%
compared with gasoline ICEVs.

GASOLINE

ICEV

200

HEV

DIESEL

HFCEV, NG reforming

150

100

50

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

WTW energy demand (kWh/100km)
Figure 2. WTW greenhouse gas emissions (GHGE) and energy demand of 2010
passenger cars using different energy sources. For ICEVs, HEVs, and PHEVs, the higher
estimate is for gasoline, and the lower one is for diesel.
Table 2. Assumed electric energy and fuel consumption levels of 2010 power trains

2010 power
train
ICEV, gasoline

Adjusted
Adj. el.
Fuel
El. energy
2010
fuel
energy
consumption consumption Adjustment consumption consumption
kWh 100km-1 kWh 100km-1
factor
kWh 100km-1 kWh 100km-1
56.7

-

1.24

70.3

-

ICEV, diesel

45.2

-

1.24

56.0

-

HEV, gasoline

39.4

-

1.41

55.5

-

HEV, diesel

35.6

-

1.41

50.2

-

14.5

1.41

-

20.4

PHEV, gasoline

39.4

14.5

1.41

55.5

20.4

PHEV, diesel

35.6

14.5

1.41

50.2

20.4

HFCEV

26.1

-

1.41

36.8

-

BEV

same discrepancy level is assumed
for BEVs and HFCEVs.
I n t h e E u ro p e a n Co m m i ss i o n ’s
analyses (Edwards, Lonza, Maas &
Rickeard, 2011; Edwards, Hass, Larivé,
Lonza, Maas, & Rickeard, 2014),
PHEVs are modeled in accordance
with European regulation UNECE
R101, leading to overly optimistic fuel
consumption levels, and an average
discrepancy level of 100% and more
between official type-approval and
real-world values (Stewart, HopeMorley, Mock & Tietge, 2015). For this
study, an approach more in line with
the real-world usage of the vehicles
is assumed by applying the average

discrepancy level for HEV fuel consumption when the PHEV is operated
on fuel (charge-sustaining mode),
and BEV electric energy consumption when operated on electricity
(charge-depleting mode).3 Thus, the
discrepancy is assumed to be 41%,
which is the same as for BEV and
HEV (and HFCEV). All fuel consumption levels and their adjusted values
are shown in Table 2.
3

It is acknowledged, though, that real
electric energy consumption will be slightly
above that of a BEV, and fuel consumption
will be above that of a HEV due to the
combined higher weight of an electric
power train and a combustion engine.
However, values are not altered due to the
absence of further information.

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 7

ELECTRIC VEHICLES: LITERATURE REVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY COSTS AND CARBON EMISSIONS

a) BEV, 2010
250
WTW GHGE (g CO2e/km)

As a result of taking into account
these adjustment factors, WTW
energy consumption figures are
higher compared with the results from
the European Commission researchers (Edwards, Larivé, Beziat, 2011;
Edwards, Hass, Larivé, Lonza, Maas,
& Rickeard, 2014), of between 13% for
BEVs, to 35% for HEVs and PHEVs.
The following subsections detail
WTW figures for all electric power
trains using different feedstocks.

9.1. BEVs

Hard coal
200

Hard coal, IGCC
Hard coal, IGCC+CCS
NG, CCGT, 4000km

150

NG, CCGT+CCS, 4000km
Wind

100

50

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

WTW energy demand (kWh/100km)

b) PHEV, 2010
250

EU grid mix, 2009
Hard coal

WTW GHGE (g CO2e/km)

Figure 3a shows that energy requirements and GHG emissions of BEVs
are highly dependent on the electricity source used. Electricity from
wind power is the least GHG- and
energy-intensive option, resulting
in 6 g CO 2e per km. Coal and gas
power combined with CCS options
can save GHG emissions, but are
also less energy efficient. If fueled
with electricity from coal power,
BEVs can reach emission intensities
up to 243 g CO2e per km, exceeding
ICEVs with 204 g CO 2e per km for
gasoline, and 174 g CO2e per km for
diesel (see Figure 2).

EU grid mix, 2009

200

Hard coal, IGCC
Hard coal, IGCC+CCS
NG, CCGT, 4000km

150

NG, CCGT+CCS
Wind

100

50

0
0

9.2. PHEVs

20

40

60

80

100

Unlike BEVs and HFCEVs, PHEVs are
partially powered by the combustion
of fossil fuel in an engine. Thus,
PHEVs release tailpipe emissions
into the air. On a WTW basis, differences in emissions between different
electricity sources are thus less clear
compared with BEVs and HFCEVs. As
for PHEVs, in which fuel use is supplemented by electricity use, data points
in Figure 3b are quite close together.
In this study, a 50–50 share of fuel
and electricity use is assumed, which
is in agreement with earlier research
(Stewart, Hope-Morley, Mock &
Tietge, 2015). For each feedstock, the
higher estimate is for gasoline PHEVs,
and the lower is for diesel.

WTW GHGE (g CO2e/km)

WTW energy demand (kWh/100km)

Typically, PHEVs have higher energy
requirements and GHG emissions
than BEVs. However, if powered with

Figure 3. WTW GHG emissions (GHGE) and energy requirements of (a) BEV,
(b) PHEV, (c) HFCEV (2010 passenger car) using different electricity sources and
conversion pathways

c) HFCEV, 2010
300

NG reforming, 7000km
NG reforming, CCS, 4000km

250

Coal gasification, EU -mix
Coal gasification, CCS

200

Wind, electrolysis

150
100
50
0
0

8 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 

20
40
60
80
WTW energy demand (kWh/100km)

100

WORKING PAPER 2016-14

ELECTRIC VEHICLES: LITERATURE REVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY COSTS AND CARBON EMISSIONS

Figure 4 shows how the share of
driving in charge-sustaining mode
influences WTW energy demand and
GHG emissions. The higher the share
of fuel use (20%–50%–80%), the
closer the data points move together.
In general, lower fuel use decreases
WTW emissions and energy demand.
Ye t, i n co m b in at i o n w i t h co al powered electricity, higher fuel use
reduces overall GHG emissions.

9.3. HFCEVs
HFCEVs are free of tailpipe emissions
other than water vapor. WTW GHG
emissions and energy consumption
can differ substantially, depending
on how hydrogen is created, the GHG
intensity of the feedstock, and the
type of hydrogen storage (onboard
or central). The lowest GHG emissions
can be achieved with wind-powered
electrolysis; however, this is currently
too expensive to be a viable option.
Another future large-scale option
for hydrogen production is coal
gasification, though this has a GHG
and energy balance in the region of
gasoline ICEVs: 284 g CO2e per km
and 73 kWh per 100 km (Figure 3c).
The majority of hydrogen is currently
produced by natural gas reforming,
resulting in WTW GHG emissions of
177 g CO2e per km, compared with
the direct usage of electricity from
natural gas for BEVs, which results
in 90 g CO 2e per km (Figure 3a).
Similarly, for all other electricity
options, it is revealed that intermediate conversion to hydrogen can cause
significantly higher energy consumption and GHG emissions compared
with the direct use of electricity.
Detailed values and assumptions for

WORKING PAPER 2016-14

PHEV, 2010
250

WTW GHGE (g CO2e/km)

electricity solely from coal, BEVs
and PHEVs reach similar values. This
can be explained by the high GHG
intensity of coal power. Conversely, if
electricity from wind power is used,
BEVs emit considerably less GHG
emissions than PHEVs, because the
low GHG intensity of wind power is
outweighed by the use of fuel.

20% 50% 80%

2009 EU grid mix,
gasoline
Hard coal, gasoline

200

NG, CCGT, gasoline
Wind, gasoline
ICEV, gasoline

150

100

50

0

0

20

40

60

80

100

WTW energy demand (kWh/100km)
Figure 4. Influence of fuel use on WTW GHG emissions (GHGE) and energy demand

the WTW meta-analysis are provided
in Table A 1 to Table A 4 in the Annex.
It is worth noting that WTW energy
use and GHG emissions figures
for all vehicle types are static and
are average values, because they
do not include individual driving
behavior, different driving situations
where fuel consumption can differ,
or potential rebound effects and
technology breakthroughs. Future
WTW analyses may address these
effects. Also, as mentioned earlier,
WTW analysis is focused on fuel and
electricity production and does not
include vehicle production and dismantling/recycling. Earlier life-cycle
assessments demonstrated that GHG
emissions from the manufacturing
phase of EVs are roughly double that
of ICEVs (87–95g CO 2e per km vs.
43g CO2e per km) (Hawkins, Singh,
Majeau-Bettez & Strømman, 2012),
which somewhat diminishes the
WTW balance of EVs (also compare
with UCS, 2015, p. 21).
According to another study, the overall
life-cycle environmental impact of
the Li-ion battery is about 15% as
a share of the whole BEV (Notter,
G auch, Widmer, Wäger, Stamp,
Zah & Althaus, 2010). The Union of
Concerned Scientists (UCS, 2015)

states that the battery causes 8%–12%
of total life-cycle GHG emissions, but
the higher production emissions are
quickly offset by use of the vehicle.
Options to further decrease the
overall environmental impact of EVs
include battery recycling, or the reuse
of batteries as grid-level electricity
storage (Dunn, Gaines, Kelly, James &
Gallagher, 2015).

10. OST REDUCTIONS
C
10.1. Battery Packs
Given the high share of battery costs
in total EV costs, it is likely that the
success of BEVs, PHEVs, and HEVs will
be mainly driven by developments in
battery costs. The costs associated
with Li-ion batteries are expected
to drop dramatically (see Figure
5) due to advancements in battery
designs and production techniques.
This also includes the replacement of
high-cost materials and economies
of scale, improvements to the cell
and electrode structure design, and
high-volume production processes
with reduced wastage.
Electric batteries are composed
of several electrochemical cells.
Cell costs are expected to fall at
a slightly slower rate than battery

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 9

ELECTRIC VEHICLES: LITERATURE REVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY COSTS AND CARBON EMISSIONS

The highest initial cost estimate of
€2,000 per kWh is provided by Syrota
(2008), as referenced by Hacker,
Harthan, Matthes & Zimmer (2009).
The lowest known cost estimate is
given by UBS (2014) at €100 per kWh
for the battery pack by 2025, based on
recent steep cost declines. Estimates
by Ricardo-AEA (2015) arrive at
about €160 per kWh in 2030. The
National Academy of Sciences (NAS,
2013) expects battery pack costs to
be in the order of €205 per kWh for
PHEVs and €160 per kWh for BEVs
in 2030 in the optimistic scenario,
or €250 and €200 per kWh in the
midrange scenario. Both types have
lower relative costs (in € per kWh)
compared with batteries for HEVs and
HFCEVs, which require higher power
density and different characteristics.
Data shown in Figure 5 are collected
from various peer-reviewed
papers and scientific and consultancy reports dating back to 2007,
resulting in a total sample size of
118. However, data sources older
than 2013 are not taken into account
for the fitted line in the figure, and
they are referred to as “background
data.” The central cost estimate for
a 2015 BEV battery pack is roughly
€250 per kWh (see fitted curve).
Accordingly, BEV battery pack costs
would equate to around €6,000 for a
24-kWh rated battery pack.
This estimate is in accordance with a
recent report by the U.S. DOE (Faguy,
2015), which states that battery costs
of DOE-funded projects declined
down to €230 per kWh on average
by 2014. Similar results are obtained
by Nykvist and Nilsson (2015),
who find costs of market-leading

2,000

“Background data”
BEV battery pack

Battery pack costs in €/kWh

packs because volume-independent
costs make up about 30% of cell
costs, but only 25% of battery pack
costs. Volume-independent costs
are the costs of raw materials, standardized parts, labor, and general
machinery, and they are assumed
to remain relatively constant until
2020 (BCG, 2010).

PHEV battery pack
1,500

HFCEV battery pack
USDOE 2022 cost target
BEV battery pack, central estimate

1,000

500

0
2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

Figure 5. Range of estimated Li-ion battery pack costs for BEVs, PHEVs, and HFCEVs
and the 2022 U.S. cost target for BEV battery packs

manufacturers (such as Tesla or
Renault-Nissan, which are producers
of 50,000 units and more) to be in
the order of €240 per kWh, with an
average of €320 per kWh for all manufacturers. Bain & Company (2015)
also estimate €260 per kWh in 2015.
For the costs in 2020, a study
b y D a i m l e r e n g i n e e r s ( M a ye r,
Kreyenberg, Wind & Braun, 2012)
estimates a range of €310–€410
per kWh, which seems rather conservative by comparison. A more
optimistic outlook (Nelson, Ahmed,
Gallagher & Dees, 2015) estimates
that market leaders may approach
€150–€180 per kWh by 2020 at a
production volume of 30,000 units
or more (BEV battery packs only) in
advanced factories. These advanced
factories are called flexible plants
that can produce different types of
batteries for BEVs, PHEVs, and HEVs
at varying production volumes up
to a total of 235,000 units per year.
The authors developed the first
freely available, peer-reviewed cost
model for automotive batteries,
called BatPac.4
As of 2015, Renault-Nissan,
Tesla, General Motors, Mitsubishi,
4 Available at http://www.cse.anl.gov/batpac/
download.php.

10 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 

Volkswagen, BMW, BYD, and Kandi
have all produced more than 25,000
EVs per year and are looking to
grow their production volume, which
indicated that many companies are
now reaching the Renault-Nissan and
Tesla volume of more than 50,000.
General Motors, which began its nextgeneration BEV production in 2015
for the Bolt, has indicated its battery
cell production is on the order of €110
per kWh and will be decreasing to
as low as €80 per kWh in the 2021
time frame (Cobb, 2015). These
estimates indicate that automakers
and increasingly competitive battery
suppliers are moving toward higher
production—up to 500,000 vehicles
by 2020 in the case of Tesla (Tesla
Motors, 2014)—and potentially further
reducing costs toward €130–€180 per
kWh at the battery pack level in the
2020–25 time frame, and perhaps to
the DOE’s target of US$125 (€100)
per kWh in the longer term (U.S. DOE,
2015; Faguy, 2015).

10.2. Fuel Cell Systems
Fuel cell systems used in HFCEVs also
significantly dropped in costs, and
this trend is expected to continue in
the future. System costs are highly
dependent on production rate and
scaling effects, which occur at a

WORKING PAPER 2016-14

ELECTRIC VEHICLES: LITERATURE REVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY COSTS AND CARBON EMISSIONS

Declining fuel cell system costs reflect
recent technological advancements,
falling material costs, and a more
efficient use of precious metals, such
as platinum, in fuel cell electrodes. The
National Academy of Sciences (NAS,
2013, p. 33) assumes cost reductions
of 2% per year between 2020 and
2030 for the midrange case, and 3%
per year for the optimistic case. At
an assumed production volume of
300,000, the authors arrive at 2020
costs of €28 per kW (optimistic),
and €32 per kW (midrange). At a
production volume of 500,000 units,
the Carbon Trust (2012) expects
system costs to drop down to €39
per kW by 2030. Assuming equal
production rates, the lowest known
estimate is €21 per kW (IRENA, 2014).
The DOE (U.S. DOE, 2014) estimates
€225 per kW at 1,000 produced
units and €83 per kW at 10,000
units. Moving further to 100,000
units may approach about €53 per
kW. Compare this with the RicardoAEA (2015) study, which estimates
2013 costs at about €600 per kW, at
production levels of a few thousand
units, with costs coming down to €40
per kW by 2030 (not shown in Figure
6 because the production scale is not
further specified). A study conducted
for the consultancy Roland-Berger
(Bernhart, Riederle & Yoon, 2013)
estimates system costs to be €500
per kW in 2015 and €100 per kW
in 2025 and beyond at production
volumes of 3,000 units in 2015 and
5 million units in 2025 onwards (not
shown in Figure 6). Other studies

WORKING PAPER 2016-14

Table 3. Assumed production volumes of hydrogen fuel cell systems in a typical and a
low-cost scenario (based on Toyota, 2015; U.S. DOE, 2014)
Scenario

2015

2020

2025

2030

Typical

1,000

5,000

10,000

50,000
(30,000–80,000)

Low cost

1,000

10,000

50,000
(30,000–80,000)

100,000

250

Mock & Schmid (2009)

1,000 units, €225/kw

Mock (2010)
ORNL (2013)

200
System costs in €/kW

minimum of 30,000 units or higher
(see Figure 6). Based on the information that Toyota Motors produced
700 units of the Mirai in 2015,
planning to increase production up to
2,000 units in 2016 and 3,000 units
in 2017 (Toyota, 2015), the present
study assumes a production volume
of 1,000 units in 2015 and 5,000
units in 2020 in a typical scenario.
The low-cost scenario assumes a
production volume of 10,000 units
by 2020. Further assumed growth is
illustrated in Table 3.

Carbon Trust (2012)
James et al. (2014)
James et al. (2010)
NAS (2013)

150

Mayer et al. (2012)
USDOE (2014)
100

50

0
0.0

USDOE target (40 US$/kW)
10,000 units, €83/kw
100,000 units, €53/kw

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Production volume in million units
Figure 6. Range of projected fuel cell system costs for HFCEVs as a function of
production volume

estimate €28–€40 per kW at one
million produced units (Mock, 2010;
Mock & Schmid, 2009).

10.3. Hydrogen Storage
According to the National Academy
of Sciences (NAS, 2013, pp. 30ff, p.
293), costs of onboard hydrogen
storage are estimated at about
€2,700 in 2010 and expected to drop
down to about €1,600–€1,900 in
2030. Storage capacity is estimated
to decrease from 5.5 kg to 3.8 kg
(midrange) or 3.3 kg (optimistic) in
2030, which adds to the cost per
kilogram, but reduces the total cost.
Fuel savings and new manufacturing techniques can further alleviate
these costs. In addition, significant
cost improvements in carbon fiber
are expected by 2030, resulting in net
cost reductions.

10.4. Car Cost Increment
The NAS compares incremental costs
of BEVs, PHEVs, and HFCEVs over a
small to lower medium ICEV manufactured in 2010. Electric vehicle drivetrains are much more costly initially,
with cost increments of about €6,500
for PHEVs, €6,800 for HFCEVs, and
€12,600 for BEVs (see Figure 7),
at assumed production volumes of
300,000 units per year. Costs of EV
power trains decrease significantly
over time (at constant production
scale), while the costs of ICEVs are
growing primarily due to the cost of
weight reduction. Hybridization of the
power train is not assumed. The study
analyses a midrange and an optimistic
scenario. Differences between the
cases are due to higher weight
reductions, higher rolling resistance
reductions, better aerodynamics, and

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 11

ELECTRIC VEHICLES: LITERATURE REVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY COSTS AND CARBON EMISSIONS

(a) HFCEV car cost increment, €

(b) PHEV car cost increment, €

60,000

20,000

50,000
15,000

40,000
30,000

10,000

20,000
5,000

10,000
0
2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

0
2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

NAS (2013) mid

NAS (2013) opt

Ricardo (2015) typ

Ricardo (2015) low

Ricardo (2015) low

Ricardo (2015) typ

IRENA (2013) high

IRENA (2013) low

ORNL (2013)

This study, low

US EPA (2012) PHEV-40

US EPA (2012) PHEV-20

NAS (2013), PHEV-30, opt

NAS (2013), PHEV-30, mid

This study, typ

This study, PHEV-30

(c) BEV car cost increment, €

(d) ICEV car cost increment, €

25,000

5,000

20,000

4,000

15,000

3,000

10,000

2,000

5,000

1,000

0
2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

Ricardo (2015) typ

Ricardo (2015) low

US EPA (2012) BEV-100

2015

NAS (2013) mid

2020

2025

NAS (2013) opt

2030

US EPA (2012) BEV-150

NAS (2013) BEV-130, mid

0
2010

Mock (2013)

NAS (2013) BEV-130, opt

This study, BEV-150
Figure 7. Estimated cost increment of EV power trains over a 2010 ICEV passenger car. Production scales can vary considerably
between different studies. Own estimates for 2015 are based on an assumed ~50,000+ produced batteries and ~1,000 fuel cell
systems; for 2030 ~500,000+ battery packs and ~50,000 (typical) to ~100,000 (low-cost) fuel cell systems are assumed.

higher accessory efficiencies in the
optimistic case. The cost difference
between the two scenarios highlights
the cost gain of downsizing and
improved efficiencies.
According to Ricardo-AEA, for a lower
medium car, fuel cell technology leads
to the highest additional manufacturing costs (€52,700). The large range
of cost estimates reflects the large
variances in assumed production
volumes. Ricardo-AEA assumes fuel

cell system production volumes of a
few thousand units. The large cost
range between different studies,
especially for HFCEVs, reduces as a
function of time, as all studies assume
increasing production volumes of
electric drivetrains, thereby reaping
the benefits of scale economies.

and HEVs. 5 Further variable cost
reductions in electric motors from
around €9 per kW to €5–€5.50 per
kW are expected between 2010
and 2030 (NAS, 2013; Ricardo-AEA,
2015). Current high battery costs
also explain the significantly higher
production costs of BEVs over PHEVs.

The cost reductions in battery
packs will especially affect BEV
costs because they usually have a
larger battery than PHEVs, HFCEVs,

5

12 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 

For a sample of small and compact cars,
batteries range between 13–30 kWh for
BEVs (n=9) and 4–19 kWh for PHEVs (n=10).
HFCEVs and HEVs have smaller batteries,
around 0.99-1.6 kWh (n=6).

WORKING PAPER 2016-14

ELECTRIC VEHICLES: LITERATURE REVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY COSTS AND CARBON EMISSIONS

25,000

Cost increment in €

Total 2025

Other EV parts
15,000

Total 2020

H2 storage

Incremental costs for the BEV-100
option fall down to € 1,400 by
2025 and thus below the PHEV-10
with €2,100. Incremental costs for
the ICEV are still slightly lower with
€1,200–€1,300 but the breakingeven point is reached shortly after.
By 2030, the costs of BEV-100 and
BEV-150 are below ICEV costs and
the 10-mile PHEV breaks even with
the ICEV. HFCEVs achieve similar
but still slightly higher costs than the
BEV-300.

Total 2015

Battery
20,000

Fuel cell

Total 2030

Motor
Transmission
ICE credit

10,000

5,000

0

IC
EV

B

EV
-1
0
0
B
EV
-1
50
B
EV
-2
0
0
B
EV
-3
0
0
PH
EV
-1
0
PH
EV
-2
0
PH
EV
-3
0
PH
EV
-4
0
PH
EV
H
-6
FC
0
EV
(t
yp
H
FC
)
EV
(l
ow
)

-5,000

Figure 8. Cost breakdown of different power trains for a 2030 lower medium car.
Assumed battery production volume is ~500,000+ units, fuel cell system production
is ~50,000 for the typical case and ~100,000 for the low-cost case. Circles represent
total incremental costs over a 2010 ICEV.

Total costs of PHEVs are expected
to decline at a slower rate because
they have smaller batteries that still
need to provide high power, and
are thus assumed to be more costly
(about €80 per kWh) (NAS, 2013).
In contrast to electric propulsion
systems, ICEVs are expected to grow
in costs, primarily due to further
drivetrain efficiency improvements
and added costs from improved
exhaust after treatment. An ICCT
study estimates the cost increase
to be about €1,000 by 2020 (Mock,
2013), and the NAS estimates it to be
about €1,700–€1,900 by 2030.
As indicated in section 10.1, battery
pack level prices may decline further
from an estimated €250 per kWh
down to €130–€180 per kWh for
industry leaders between 2015 and
the 2020–25 time frame. This would
reduce the cost of a 24-kWh rated
BEV battery from about €6,000 to
below €4,000, which would reduce
the incremental cost of the BEV
power train accordingly. Similarly,
moving from an assumed production

WORKING PAPER 2016-14

volume of 1,000 to 10,000 fuel cell
systems may reduce costs from €225
per kW to €83 per kW (U.S. DOE,
2014). This would reduce the cost of
a 90 kW fuel cell system from about
€20,000 to about €7,500.
Taking into account these component
cost estimates, Figure 8 illustrates
additional electric power train cost
in 2030 and compares these with the
costs from 2015 to 2025. All types
are characterized by significant cost
reductions between 2015 and 2030.
The PHEV-30 achieves a 49% cost
reduction, the BEV-100 60%, and the
HFCEV 70% (excluding ICE credits).
This is due to falling component
prices and an assumed downsizing
of 1% per year for the motor and the
fuel cell system, and 2% per year for
the battery pack, according to the
midrange scenario by NAS (2013).
Cost credits are subtracted from
BEV and HFCEV power train costs
for the non-existing combustion
engine, exhaust pipe, and conventional transmission.

Performing a simple uncertainty
analysis, as done in section 8, yields
a variation in power train cost
(excluding ICE credits) between ±2%
(PHEV-10) to ±15% (HFCEV). These
variations are lower than in 2015,
where costs are ranging between
±5% to ±17%, which is due to the
falling cost of the battery packs and
fuel cell systems.
As seen in Figure 7, the resulting cost
estimates for a 2015 HFCEV are at
the upper end of previously reported
cost estimates. With an assumed
increasing production scale, costs fall
steeply and eventually reach the lower
end of reported values for 2030. Cost
estimates for BEVs and PHEVs are
below recent estimates. It should be
stressed again that this is mainly due
to the fact that this work assumes
relatively low battery pack cost, but
comparably high initial fuel cell system
costs (due to low observed production
scale). HFCEV cost estimates bear
higher uncertainty, as fuel cell system
production is still at an early stage and
the future production scale is difficult
to quantify.

10.5. Charging Infrastructure
The above cost figures do not take
into account the new charging
infrastructure that will be needed
for EV deployment. Differences in
cost estimations per type of charger
are large (see Figure 9), partly due
to the inclusion or exclusion of
various cost components, such as
planning, installation, authorization,

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 13

ELECTRIC VEHICLES: LITERATURE REVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY COSTS AND CARBON EMISSIONS

According to the German National
Platform for Electric Mobility (NPE,
2015), Level 2 public chargers (>3.7
kW) in Germany cost €2,200 on
average, and are expected to cost
€1,700 in 2020, including planning,
authorization, installation, signposting, etc. Faster stations (11 or 22
kW) currently cost €10,000 and are
assumed to drop down to €7,500
in 2020. Level 3 chargers (50 kW)
are by far the most expensive, with
a calculated median cost of €32,500
(see Figure 9). Empirical evidence
comes from Europe with reported
actual costs for fast charging points
of about €25,800 per vehicle7 (EC,
2015). The NPE (2015) also reports
that fast charging points in Germany
ranged between €20,000 and 35,000
6 The purchaser price is €174, and has been
divided by 1.5 (Roland-Holst, 2012; NAS,
2013) to arrive at the manufacturer’s price
of €116.
7 €4 million have been invested in 155 fast
charging points as part of the TEN-T
program.

5

80,000

4

60,000

3

40,000

2

32,500
1.16

20,000

0

1
660

Level 1,
home
(n=6)

1,600

640

Level 2,
home
(n=16)

Level 2,
work
(n=2)

Investment cost in million €

100,000

Investment cost in €

s i g n p o st i n g , e tc . Th e N a t i o n a l
Academy of Sciences (NAS, 2013)
estimates Level 1 charging points
in the United States to cost about
€540 on average, including installation. Costs range between €350
and €1,500. Other sources report
costs as low as €1166 in the United
States (HomeAdvisor, 2016). The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(U.S. EPA, 2012) even cites €62 for
a PHEV-20 charger, €327–€416 for
a PHEV-40 charger, and €416 for
an EV charger in the United States,
with an additional installation cost
of €806 for all three types. These
numbers indicate that costs can be
quite low for those only charging
at home. Level 2 home chargers in
Europe and the United States can be
as cheap as €200. The highest known
cost estimate for Level 2 residential
chargers is €5,300 (INL, 2015), which
is driven by the electrical upgrades
needed in older houses. The present
study finds a median value for Level
1 and 2 residential chargers of about
€640–€660.

4,200

Level 2,
public
(n=19)

Level 3,
public
(n=14)

Hydrogen,
public
(n=21)

0

Type of charger
Figure 9. Summary of investment costs for electricity and hydrogen chargers by
station type (and for differing regions). Colored dots indicate the median and error
bars indicate the range of cited literature values. The left vertical axis is for electricity
chargers, and the right one is for hydrogen chargers.

in 2015. Costs for 2020 are expected
to be about €24,000 on average.
H yd ro g e n f u e l i n g s t a t i o n s a re
more costly by several magnitudes,
ranging from ~€330,000 to ~€5
million, depending on type and cost
components included. A study from
Shanghai (Weinert, Shajoun, Ogden
& Jianxin, 2007) estimates costs for
six different station types, including
capital cost and operating cost,
to range between ~€330,000 and
~€1.1 million. In Germany, costs are
estimated at about €1 million per
station in 2015 (Hegmann, 2015).
The National Academy of Sciences
(NAS, 2008) estimates capital costs
in the United States to range between
€320,000 and €1.7 million per station
using on-site natural gas reforming.
Per-station costs rise up to €2 million
when using on-site electrolysis. Costs
are expected to decrease down to an
average of €970,000 in 2020, and to
€350,000 by 2035.
On a per-vehicle basis, costs are very
uncertain, as relatively little is known
about how many cars can be served
by one station, and which charger
types are preferred by users. Costs
for PHEVs are assumed to be lower, as

14 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 

these rely less on the new infrastructure. Even though hydrogen chargers
are considerably more expensive, pervehicle costs of BEVs and HFCEVs are
expected to be similar as refueling
is quicker, and investment costs are
therefore spread over more vehicles.
The National Academy of Sciences
(NAS, 2013, pp. 45, 307) calculates
electricity infrastructure investment
costs for the United States in 2010,
2020, and 2030 on a per-vehicle basis,
including costs for home and public
chargers, but not costs for electricity
generation, transmission, distribution,
grid expansion, or parking spaces.
For each vehicle, a mix of charging
stations is assumed. For example, for
a PHEV-10 one Level 1 home charger
and 0.25 of a Level 1 charger at work
(NAS, 2013, p. 319). As a result, infrastructure investment costs are the
highest for BEVs (€3,350 in 2010)
because they fully rely on the new
fuel infrastructure that is largely yet to
be built. Infrastructure costs go down
with decreasing battery usage. Thus,
costs are lower for PHEVs (€3,300
for a PHEV-40, €632 for a PHEV-10).
Future investment costs are expected
to drop with increasing battery ranges
(€510 to €2,310 in 2030).

WORKING PAPER 2016-14

ELECTRIC VEHICLES: LITERATURE REVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY COSTS AND CARBON EMISSIONS

All power trains, 2010-2020
250

PHEV, gasoline, 2020 EU grid mix
PHEV, diesel, 2020 EU grid mix
BEV, 2020 EU grid mix

200
WTW GHGE (g CO2e/km)

A study from the University of
California, Davis (Ogden, Yang,
Nicholas & Fulton, 2014) assumes an
investment cost of €120–€240 million
for 50,000–100,000 HFCEVs served
by 100–200 hydrogen refueling
stations. Thus, estimated costs on
a per-car basis amount to about
€2,300. The International Energy
Agency (IEA, 2015) estimates costs to
range between €700 and €1,500 per
HFCEV, depending on world region,
including electricity transmission
and distribution, and hydrogen retail
and generation infrastructure. The
National Academy of Sciences (NAS,
2008) assumes that 2,112 hydrogen
stations cost €2 billion and can serve
1.8 million cars. Thus, costs per vehicle
would be €1,600.

ICEV, gasoline
ICEV, diesel
150

HEV, gasoline
HEV, diesel
HFCEV, NG reforming

100

Adjusted 2021
CO2 standard

50

0

0

20

40

60

80

100

WTW energy demand (kWh/100km)

11. GHG EMISSIONS
AND ENERGY USE
REDUCTIONS
As described in section 9, there is
a significant discrepancy between
type-approval and actual real-world
fuel consumption. This discrepancy
is assumed to increase from 24% to
45% for ICEVs by 2020, in a businessas-usual scenario where the current
NEDC test procedure is kept in place
(Tietge, Zacharof, Mock, Franco,
German, Bandivadekar, Ligterink
& Lambrecht, 2015). Similarly, an
increase from 41% to 61% is assumed
for hybrid and electric power trains. It
should be noted that the anticipated
introduction of the new Worldwide
Harmonized Light Vehicles Test
Procedure (WLTP) in the EU in 2017 is
expected to help reduce the discrepancy between official and real-world
consumption and emission values—
which is not taken into account for
the purpose of this study.
Furthermore, the study cited above
by t h e E u r o p e a n C o m m i s s i o n
(Edwards, Hass, Larivé, Lonza, Maas
& Rickeard, 2014) assumes that
upstream emissions in the energy
supply chain will be reduced due to
more efficient production processes

WORKING PAPER 2016-14

Figure 10. Expected change in WTW GHG emissions and energy demand of different
power trains. Hollow dots represent 2010 values, solid dots 2020. The horizontal line
represents the 2021 European passenger car CO2 standard adjusted to WTW and
real-world fuel consumption.

and thermal power plants. However,
the authors assume the same grid
electricity GHG intensity in 2010
and 2020 (540 g CO 2 e per kWh)
due to uncertain penetration rates
of low-carbon technologies. In the
present study, a growing share of
renewable electricity in accordance
with IEA’s New Policy Scenario
(IEA, 2011) is assumed, leading to
an estimated grid intensity of about
420 g CO 2e per kWh in 2020, and
therefore lower upstream emissions.
Finally, the assumption made by
Edwards and colleagues (2014) that
power trains increase efficiencies
by roughly 30% between 2010 and
2020 is adopted here. In addition,
the authors assume an increased
electric drive-cycle range from 120
km in 2010, to 200 km in 2020 for
the modeled BEV. The PHEV is
assumed to have a constant electric
range of 20 km.
As shown in Figure 10, electric-drive
vehicles offer the potential to greatly
reduce carbon emissions, even

from advanced 2020 HEVs. Internal
combustion engine vehicles in 2020
can achieve emission levels that are
in the region of an adjusted 2021 CO2
emission standard of about 156 g CO2
per km (see Figure 10). This adjusted
standard represents the official CO2
standard for European passenger
vehicles in 2021, which is 95 g CO2/km,
after including upstream petroleum
emissions and on-road fuel consumption. To get to the adjusted standard,
the official standard is multiplied
by a factor of 1.64, which is derived
by dividing total WTW emissions
by unadjusted tailpipe emissions,
resulting in 172 g CO2e per kWh/105
g CO2e per kWh = 1.64 (example for a
gasoline ICEV).8
2020 BEVs and PHEVs would achieve
32%–54% lower emissions than this
adjusted 2021 emission standard for
conventional vehicles. 2020 BEVs can
8 Using the original unadjusted numbers
from Edwards et al. (2014) would result in a
factor of 125/105 = 1.19. This factor is lower,
as the authors do not take real-world fuel
consumption into account.

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 15

ELECTRIC VEHICLES: LITERATURE REVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY COSTS AND CARBON EMISSIONS

reduce carbon emissions by another
35% compared with 2010. This results
in a total carbon benefit of 65%
compared with a 2010 gasoline ICEV.
These results are in line with an earlier
ICCT report (Lutsey, 2015a), which
finds that electric vehicles would go
from about a 53% carbon reduction
benefit over average EU vehicles in
2013 to a 76% benefit with a shift to
a lower carbon grid in 2030 per IEA
Policy Cases.

12. CONCLUSIONS AND
OUTLOOK
This paper analyzed the role of
electric vehicles within a lower
carbon 2020–2030 new vehicle fleet
in Europe. For this purpose, literature
data on cost and emissions has been
collected, analyzed, and aggregated.
Based on the collected data, the cost
of batteries, fuel cells, and charging
infrastructure has been estimated. In
addition, power train costs of BEVs,
PHEVs, and HFCEVs has been approximated using a bottom-up approach.
In addition to recent cost declines,
power train costs for all three types
are expected to decrease further, by
50%–70% between 2015 and 2030.
This occurs over the same period as
conventional combustion vehicles
are having expected cost increases,
further narrowing the gap between
conventional and electric drivetrains.
As a result, BEVs can break even with

ICEVs and even fall below the costs of
PHEVs by 2030.
Cost reduction in electric drivetrains
is largely driven by cost reductions in
battery and fuel cell production. This
paper estimates 2015 BEV battery pack
costs at roughly €250 per kWh for
market leaders, which is in agreement
with most recent scholarly literature.
Further cost reductions down to as low
as €130–€180 per kWh are anticipated
in the 2020–25 time frame. Fuel cell
costs will be highly dependent on the
actual production scale.
Li-ion batteries will likely remain the
main chemistry for EV batteries in
the foreseeable future. Promising
new avenues of research may include
the further improvement of batteries
and fuel cells and the development
of new battery concepts beyond
Li-ion, such as lithium-air, -metal or
-sulfur. Simultaneous deployment
of residential, workplace, and public
charging will also be important over
the same time period.
Estimations of energy demand and
carbon emissions of electric and conventional power trains have been made
by building on and refining previous
work. In doing so, tailpipe emissions
and also all upstream emissions from
electricity and fuel production were
considered. In addition, the real-world
fuel consumption of vehicles has
been taken into account. It was found
that, with some exceptions, electric

16 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 

vehicles provide consistent benefits
versus internal combustion vehicles
with the mix of power sources widely
available. With average European
electricity sources, BEVs provide
an about 40%–50% GHG benefit
compared with average vehicles. With
higher power train efficiencies and an
increasing share of renewable energy
in the European grid mix, carbon
emissions from BEVs can be cut by
another one-third by 2020.
H o w e v e r, t h e e x p e c t e d c o s t
reductions and potential CO2 emission
cuts will not be achieved without
targeted policy intervention. As has
been shown, the 2021 European
passenger car CO2 standard can be
met without notable penetration of
electric vehicles. More stringent CO2
standards, and fiscal and non-fiscal
incentives for electric vehicles
can help the EV market grow and
reduce costs. Also, efforts need to be
combined with activities to reduce
the carbon intensity of the grid, or the
whole potential of electric vehicles
to reduce emissions will not be fully
exploited. Although the analysis
is focused on a European context,
similar dynamics with electric vehicle
technology, policy, and market development are prevalent across major
North American and Asian markets.

WORKING PAPER 2016-14

ELECTRIC VEHICLES: LITERATURE REVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY COSTS AND CARBON EMISSIONS

13. REFERENCES
Alternative Fuels Data Center, U.S.
Department of Energy (AFDC)
(2015). Alternative Fueling Station
Counts by State. Retrieved from
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/
stations_counts.html.
Bain & Company (2015). Eine Million
E-Autos in Deutschland bis 2020
nicht zu schaffen. Retrieved
from http://www.bain.de/press/
press-archive/bain-analyse-zurelektromobilitaet.aspx.
Bernhart, W., Riederle, S., & Yoon,
M. (2013). Fuel cells: A realistic
alternative for zero emission?
Study for Roland–Berger Strategy
Consultants. Retrieved from
http://www.rolandberger.com/
media/pdf/Roland_Berger_Fuel_
cells_20140113.pdf.
Boston Consulting Group (BCG)
(2010). Batteries for Electric Cars:
Challenges, Opportunities, and
the Outlook to 2020. Retrieved
from http://www.bcg.com/
documents/file36615.pdf.
Carbon Trust (2012). Polymer
Fuel Cells – Cost reduction and
market potential. Retrieved from
https://www.carbontrust.com/
media/195742/pfcc-cost-reduction-and-market-potential.pdf.
Cobb, J. (2015). GM Says Li-ion
Battery Cells Down to $145/
kWh and Still Falling. Hybridcars.
com. Retrieved from http://www.
hybridcars.com/gm-ev-batterycells-down-to-145kwh-and-stillfalling/.
Cookson, C. (2015, October 30).
Cambridge chemists make superbattery breakthrough. CNBC.com.
Retrieved from http://www.cnbc.
com/2015/10/30/hemists-makesuper-battery-breakthrough.html.

WORKING PAPER 2016-14

Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und
Raumfahrt (DLR) and the
Wuppertal Institute for Climate,
Environment and Energy (2015,
March). Begleitforschung zu
Technologien, Perspektiven und
Ökobilanzen der Elektromobilität.
Retrieved from the Wuppertal
Institute https://epub.wupperinst.
org/frontdoor/index/index/
docId/5966.

European Commission (EC) (2015).
Infrastructure—TEN-T—Connecting
Europe. Retrieved from http://
ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/
infrastructure/index_en.htm.

Dunn, J. B., Gaines, L., Kelly, J. C.,
James, C., & Gallagher, K. G.
(2015). The significance of
Li-ion batteries in electric
vehicle life-cycle energy and
emissions and recycling’s
role in its reduction. Energy
& Environmental Science,
8(1), 158–168. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/
c4ee03029j.

Faguy, P. (2015, June 8). Overview
of the DOE Advanced Battery
R&D Program. Retrieved from
U.S. Department of Energy
website: http://energy.gov/
sites/prod/files/2015/06/f23/
es000_faguy_2015_o.pdf.

Edwards, R., Larivé, J.-F., & Beziat,
J.-C. (2011, July). Well-to-wheels
Analysis of Future Automotive
Fuels and Power trains in the
European Context (Version 3c).
Retrieved from the European
Commission Joint Research
Centre, Institute for Energy and
Transport (IET) website: http://
iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/about-jec/
downloads.

Hacker, F., Harthan, R., Matthes,
F., & Zimmer, W. (2009).
Environmental impacts and
impact on the electricity market
of a large scale introduction of
electric cars in Europe—Critical
Review of Literature. European
Topic Centre on Air and Climate
Change. Retrieved from acm.
eionet.europa.eu/docs/ETCACC_
TP_2009_4_electromobility.pdf

Edwards, R., Hass, H., Larivé, J.-F.,
Lonza, L., Maas, H., & Rickeard,
D. (2014, April). Well-to-Wheels
Analysis of Future Automotive
Fuels and Power trains in the
European Context (Version 4a).
Retrieved from the European
Commission Joint Research
Centre, Institute for Energy and
Transport (IET) website: http://
iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/about-jec/
downloads.

Hawkins, T. R., Singh, B., MajeauBettez, G., & Strømman,
A. H. (2012). Comparative
Environmental Life Cycle
Assessment of Conventional
and Electric Vehicles.
Journal of Industrial Ecology,
17(1), 53–64. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.15309290.2012.00532.x.

U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA) (2015).
Global EV Outlook 2015. Retrieved
from http://www.cleanenergyministerial.org/Portals/2/pdfs/
EVI-GlobalEVOutlook2015-v14landscape.pdf.

EV Sales (2016). Markets Roundup
December 2015 (Special
Edition). Retrieved from http://
ev-sales.blogspot.de/2016/02/
markets-roundup-december2015-special.html.

H2 Mobility (2015). Mission.
Retrieved from http://h2-mobility.
de/#mission.

Hegmann, G. (2015, October
28). So soll der Traum vom
Wasserstoff-Auto wahrwerden.
Die Welt. Retrieved from
http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/
article148150274/So-soll-derTraum-vom-Wasserstoff-Autowahrwerden.html.

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 17

ELECTRIC VEHICLES: LITERATURE REVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY COSTS AND CARBON EMISSIONS

HomeAdvisor (2016). How Much
Does It Cost to Install an Electric
Vehicle Charging Station?
Retrieved from http://www.
homeadvisor.com/cost/garages/
install-an-electric-vehicle-charging-station/.

International Renewable Energy
Agency (IRENA) (2013). Plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs).
Retrieved from http://costing.
irena.org/charts/plug-in-hybridelectric-vehicles-%28phevs%29.
aspx.

Hydrogen Cars Now (2016a).
European Union Hydrogen
Highway. Retrieved from http://
www.hydrogencarsnow.com/
index.php/european-unionhydrogen-highway/.

James, B. D., Kalinoski, J. A., & Baum,
K.N. (2010). Mass Production
Cost Estimation of Direct H2
PEM Fuel Cell Systems for
Transportation Applications: 2010
Update. Retrieved from the U.S.
Department of Energy website:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/
hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/
dti_80kwW_fc_system_cost_
analysis_report_2010.pdf.

Hydrogen Cars Now (2016b).
Hyundai Tucson FCEV. Retrieved
from http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/index.php/
hyundai-tucson-fcev/.
Hydrogen Cars Now (2016c). Toyota
Mirai. Retrieved from http://www.
hydrogencarsnow.com/index.
php/toyota-mirai/.
Idaho National Laboratory (INL)
(2015, September). Plug-in
Electric Vehicle and Infrastructure
Analysis. Report prepared for
the U.S. Department of Energy’s
Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy.
Retrieved from https://avt.inl.
gov/sites/default/files/pdf/
arra/ARRAPEVnInfrastructure
FinalReportHqltySept2015.pdf
International Energy Agency (IEA)
(2011, November 9). World Energy
Outlook 2011. Retrieved from
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.
org/weo2011/.
International Energy Agency (IEA)
(2015). Technology Roadmap:
Hydrogen and Fuel Cells.
Retrieved from http://www.iea.
org/publications/freepublications/publication/technologyroadmap-hydrogen-and-fuel-cells.
html.
Imanishi, N., & Yamamoto, O. (2014).
Rechargeable lithium-air batteries:
characteristics and prospects.
Materials Today, 17(1), 24–30.
Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1369702113004586.

James, B. D., Moton, J. M., & Colella,
W. G. (2014). Mass Production
Cost Estimation of Direct H2
PEM Fuel Cell Systems for
Transportation Applications:
2013 Update. Retrieved from
the U.S. Department of Energy
website: http://energy.gov/eere/
fuelcells/downloads/mass-production-cost-estimation-directh2-pem-fuel-cell-systems.
Kromer, M. A., & Heywood, J. B.
(2007). Electric Power trains:
Opportunities and Challenges
in the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle
Fleet (Publication No. LFEE
2007-03 RP) Cambridge, Mass.:
Massachusetts Institute for
Technology (MIT). Retrieved from
http://web.mit.edu/sloan-autolab/research/beforeh2/files/
kromer_electric_powertrains.pdf.
Ludwig-Bölkow Systemtechnik
(LBS) (2016). Hydrogen Filling
Stations Worldwide. Retrieved
from http://www.netinform.
net/H2/H2Stations/H2Stations.
aspx?Continent=NA&StationID=-1.
Lutsey, N. (2012). A technical analysis
of model year 2011 US automobile
efficiency. Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and
Environment, 17(5), 361–369.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.trd.2012.03.002.

18 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 

Lutsey, N. (2015a). Global climate
change mitigation potential from
a transition to electric vehicles.
Retrieved from The International
Council on Clean Transportation
website: http://www.theicct.org/
global-ev-2050-ghg-mitigationpotential.
Lutsey, N. (2015b). Transition to a
Global Zero-Emission Vehicle
Fleet: A Collaborative Agenda
for Governments. Retrieved from
The International Council on
Clean Transportation website:
http://www.theicct.org/sites/
default/files/publications/ICCT_
GlobalZEVAlliance_201509.pdf.
Mayer, T., Kreyenberg, D., Wind, J.,
& Braun, F. (2012). Feasibility
study of 2020 target costs for
PEM fuel cells and lithium-ion
batteries: A two-factor experience
curve approach. International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy,
37(19), 14463–14474. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2012.07.022.
Mock, P. (2010). Entwicklung eines
Szenariomodells zur Simulation
der zukünftigen Marktanteile
und CO2-Emissionen von
Kraftfahrzeugen (VECTOR21)
(Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/
handle/11682/6777.
Mock, P. (2013). Reducing CO2
and fuel consumption from new
cars: Assessing the near-term
technology potential in the EU.
Retrieved from The International
Council on Clean Transportation
website: http://www.theicct.org/
sites/default/files/Briefing%20
Technology%20Potential%20
Short%20EN%20v2.pdf.
Mock, P., ed. (2015). European
Vehicle Market Statistics,
Pocketbook 2015/1. Retrieved
from The International Council
on Clean Transportation website:
http://www.theicct.org/sites/
default/files/publications/
ICCT_EU-pocketbook_2015.pdf.

WORKING PAPER 2016-14

ELECTRIC VEHICLES: LITERATURE REVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY COSTS AND CARBON EMISSIONS

Mock, P., Schmid, S. A. (2009). Fuel
cells for automotive powertrains—
A techno-economic assessment.
Journal of Power Sources,
190(1), 133–140. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpowsour.2008.10.123.
National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) (2008). Transitions to
Alternative Transportation
Technologies—A Focus on
Hydrogen. doi: 10.17226/12222.
Retrieved from http://www.nap.
edu/catalog/12222/transitions-toalternative-transportation-technologies-a-focus-on-hydrogen.
National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) (2013). Transitions to
Alternative Vehicles and Fuels.
National Academy of Sciences.
doi: 10.17226/18264. Retrieved
from http://www.nap.edu/
catalog/18264/transitions-toalternative-vehicles-and-fuels.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
(2015). Overcoming Barriers to
Deployment of Plug-in Electric
Vehicles. doi: 10.17226/21725.
Retrieved from http://www.nap.
edu/catalog/21725/overcomingbarriers-to-deployment-of-plugin-electric-vehicles.
Nationale Plattform Elektromobilität
(NPE) (2015). Ladeinfrastruktur
für Elektrofahrzeuge in
Deutschland - Statusbericht und
Handlungsempfehlungen 2015.
Retrieved from http://nationaleplattform-elektromobilitaet.
de/fileadmin/user_upload/
Redaktion/NPE_AG3_
Statusbericht_LIS_2015_barr_
bf.pdf.
Nelson, P. A., Ahmed, S., Gallagher,
K. G., & Dees, D. W. (2015).
Cost savings for manufacturing
lithium batteries in a flexible
plant. Journal of Power Sources,
283, 506–516. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jpowsour.2015.02.142.

WORKING PAPER 2016-14

Notter, D. A., Gauch, M., Widmer, R.,
Wäger, P., Stamp, A., Zah, R., &
Althaus, H.-J. (2010). Contribution
of Li-ion Batteries to the
Environmental Impact of Electric
Vehicles. Environmental Science
& Technology, 44(17), 6550–6556.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.
org/10.1021/es903729a.
Nykvist, B., & Nilsson, M. (2015).
Rapidly falling costs of battery
packs for electric vehicles. Nature
Climate Change, 5(4), 329–332.
Retrieved from http://dx.doi.
org/10.1038/NCLIMATE2564.
Ogden, J., Yang, C., Nicholas, M., &
Fulton, L. (2014). The Hydrogen
Transition. Retrieved from the
Institute of Transportation Studies
at UC Davis website: http://steps.
ucdavis.edu/files/08-13-2014-0813-2014-NextSTEPS-White-PaperHydrogen-Transition-7.29.2014.
pdf.
OICA (2016). World vehicles in use:
By country and type 2005–2013.
Retrieved from the International
Organization of Motor Vehicle
Manufacturers (OICA) website:
http://www.oica.net/category/
vehicles-in-use/.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
(ORNL) (2013, July). Status
and Prospects of the Global
Automotive Fuel Cell Industry
and Plans for Deployment of
Fuel Cell Vehicles and Hydrogen
Refueling Infrastructure. Retrieved
from http://www1.eere.energy.
gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/pdfs/
fcev_status_prospects_july2013.
pdf.
Ricardo-AEA (2015). Improving
understanding of technology and
costs for CO2 reductions from cars
and LCVs in the period to 2030
and development of cost curves.
Final Report for the DirectorateGeneral for Climate Action.
[Forthcoming].

Roland-Holst, D. (2012). Plug-in
Electric Vehicle Deployment
in California: An Economic
Assessment. Retrieved from the
University of California, Berkeley,
Department of Agricultural and
Resource Economics website:
http://are.berkeley.edu/ dwrh/
CERES_Web/Docs/ETC_PEV_
RH_Final120920.pdf.
Singh, B., Strømman, A. H.,
& Hertwich, E. G. (2011).
Comparative life-cycle environmental assessment of CCS technologies. International Journal
of Greenhouse Gas Control,
5(4), 911–921. doi: 10.1016/j.
ijggc.2011.03.012.
Stewart, A., Hope-Morley, A., Mock,
P., & Tietge, U. (2015). Quantifying
the impact of real-world driving
on total CO2 emissions from UK
cars and vans. Final report for The
Committee on Climate Change
prepared by The International
Council on Clean Transportation.
Retrieved from https://www.
theccc.org.uk/wp-content/
uploads/2015/09/Impact-of-realworld-driving-emissions-for-UKcars-and-vans.pdf.
Tesla Motors (2014). Tesla
Gigafactory. Retrieved from
https://www.teslamotors.com/
de_DE/gigafactory.
Tietge, U., Zacharof, N., Mock,
P., Franco, V., German, J.,
Bandivadekar, A., Ligterink, N.,
& Lambrecht, U. (2015). From
Laboratory to Road: A 2015
Update of Official and “RealWorld” Fuel Consumption and
CO2 Values for Passenger Cars.
Retrieved from The International
Council on Clean Transportation
website: http://theicct.org/
sites/default/files/publications/
ICCT_LaboratoryToRoad_2015_
Report_English.pdf.
Toyota (2015, January 22). Toyota
Mirai production to be increased.
Retrieved from http://blog.toyota.
co.uk/toyota-mirai-productionincreased.

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 19

ELECTRIC VEHICLES: LITERATURE REVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY COSTS AND CARBON EMISSIONS

UBS (2014). Q-Series® Global
Utilities, Autos \& Chemicals: Will
solar, batteries and electric cars
re-shape the electricity system?
Retrieved from http://www.
qualenergia.it/sites/default/files/
articolo-doc/ues45625.pdf.
Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)
(2015). Cleaner Cars from Cradle
to Grave: How Electric Cars Beat
Gasoline Cars on Lifetime Global
Warming Emissions. Retrieved
from http://www.ucsusa.
org/clean-vehicles/electricvehicles/life-cycle-ev-emissions#.
V1XEFBQrIWo.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
(2014). Fuel Cell System Cost
2013. Washington D.C.: United
States Department of Energy.
Retrieved from https://www.
hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/14012_
fuel_cell_system_cost_2013.pdf.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
(2015). Revolution…Now: The
Future Arrives for Five Clean
Energy Technologies – 2015
Update. Washington D.C.: United
States Department of Energy.
Retrieved from http://energy.gov/
eere/downloads/revolution-nowfuture-arrives-five-clean-energytechnologies-2015-update.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
(2016). Hydrogen Production:
Natural Gas Reforming.
Washington, D.C.: United States
Department of Energy. Retrieved
from http://energy.gov/eere/
fuelcells/hydrogen-productionnatural-gas-reforming.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) (2012).
Regulatory Impact Analysis:
Final Rulemaking for 2017–2025
Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse
Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Retrieved from https://
www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/
documents/420r12016.pdf.

20 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
(2015). Lithium Statistics and
Information. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Geological Survey. Retrieved
from http://minerals.usgs.gov/
minerals/pubs/commodity/
lithium/index.html#mcs.
Weinert, J., Shajoun, L., Ogden,
J., & Jianxin, M. (2007).
Hydrogen refueling station
costs in Shanghai. International
Journal of Hydrogen Energy,
32(16), 4089–4100. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhydene.2007.05.010.
Wiedmann, T. O., Suh, S., Feng,
K., Lenzen, M., Acquaye, A.,
Scott, K., & Barrett, J. R. (2011).
Application of Hybrid Life Cycle
Approaches to Emerging Energy
Technologies—The Case of Wind
Power in the UK. Environmental
Science & Technology,
45(13), 5900–5907. Retrieved
from http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/
es2007287.

WORKING PAPER 2016-14

ELECTRIC VEHICLES: LITERATURE REVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY COSTS AND CARBON EMISSIONS

A. ANNEX
A.1. DETAILED VALUES AND ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE WTW META-ANALYSIS
Table A 1. ICEV and HEV, 2010
Fuel

kWh/100km

CO2e g/km

Assumptions and details

Diesel

65

174

Diesel, hybrid

57

155

Diesel fuel, DICI, 300 g CO2e/kWh

Gasoline

81

204

Gasoline fuel, DISI, 290 g CO2e/kWh

Gasoline, hybrid

63

161

Gasoline fuel, DISI, 290 g CO2e/kWh

Diesel fuel, DICI, 300 g CO2e/kWh

DISI = direct injection spark ignited engine, DICI = direct injection compression ignited

Table A 2. BEV, 2010
Electricity source
EU grid mix, 2009

kWh/100km

CO2e g/km

53

110

Assumptions and details
EU grid mix electricity, 540 g CO2e/kWh

Hard coal

47

243

Hard coal electricity, conventional, 1,190 g CO2e/kWh

Hard coal, IGCC

43

209

Hard coal, IGCC, 1,025 g CO2e/kWh

Hard coal, IGCC+CCS

49

63

Hard coal, IGCC+CCS, 308 g CO2e/kWh(a)

Natural gas, CCGT

38

90

Natural gas, CCGT, pipe transportation 4,000 km, 440 g CO2e/kWh

Natural gas, CCGT+CCS

45

32

Natural gas, CCGT+CCS, pipe transportation 4,000 km, 158 g CO2e/kWh(a)

Wind

22

6

Wind, 29 g CO2e/kWh(b)

IGCC = integrated gasification combined cycle, CCGT = combined-cycle gas turbine, CCS = carbon capture and storage
(a) Assuming that CCS can cut carbon emissions from natural gas by 64% and from coal by 70% (Singh, Strømman, & Hertwich, 2011)
(b)  ssumed zero in Edwards et al. (2014) and updated with results from a life cycle assessment on wind power in the UK (Wiedmann, Suh, Feng,
A
Lenzen, Acquaye, Scott, & Barrett, 2011).

Table A 3. PHEV, 2010
Electricity source
EU grid mix, 2009
Hard coal
Hard coal, IGCC

kWh/100km

CO2e g/km

60

136

EU grid mix electricity and gasoline, DISI

Assumptions and details

56

133

EU grid mix electricity and diesel, DICI

56

202

Hard coal electricity and gasoline, DISI

53

199

Hard coal electricity and diesel, DICI

54

185

Hard coal (IGCC) electricity and gasoline, DISI

51

182

Hard coal (IGCC) electricity and diesel, DICI

Natural gas, CCGT

Natural gas, CCGT+CCS
Wind

58

112

Hard coal (IGCC+CCS) electricity and gasoline, DISI

54

109

Hard coal (IGCC+CCS) electricity and diesel, DICI

52

125

Natural gas (combined-cycle gas turbine, CCGT) and gasoline, pipe
transportation 4,000 km, DISI

48

Hard coal, IGCC+CCS

122

Natural gas (CCGT) and diesel, pipe transportation 4,000 km, DICI

56

97

Natural gas (CCGT+CCS) and gasoline, pipe transportation 4000 km, DISI

52

94

Natural gas (CCGT+CCS) and diesel, pipe transportation 4,000 km, DICI

44

82

Wind electricity and gasoline, DISI

41

79

Wind electricity and diesel, DICI

Note: Same fuel and electricity GHG intensities used as in Table A 1 and Table A 2.

WORKING PAPER 2016-14

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 21

ELECTRIC VEHICLES: LITERATURE REVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY COSTS AND CARBON EMISSIONS

Table A 4. HFCEV, 2010
Electricity source

kWh/100km

CO2e g/km

Assumptions and details

Natural gas reforming

55

177

C-H2, natural gas, central reforming, pipe transp.
7,000km, 480 g CO2e/kWh

Natural gas reforming, CCS

57

64

C-H2, natural gas, central reforming, pipe transp.
4,000 km, CCS, 170 g CO2e/kWh

Coal gasification

73

284

C-H2, coal EU-mix, central reforming, pipe transp.,
770 g CO2e/kWh

Coal gasification, CCS

81

85

C-H2, coal EU-mix, central reforming, pipe transp.,
CCS, 230 g CO2e/kWh

Wind, electrolysis

57

15

C-H2, wind power, central electrolysis, pipe transp.,
41 g CO2e/kWh

C-H2 = compressed gaseous hydrogen

Table A 5. All power trains, 2020
Electricity/fuel type

kWh/100km

HFCEV, natural gas reforming

CO2e g/km

47

115

Assumptions and details
C-H2, natural gas, central reforming, pipe transp.
7,000 km, 460 g CO2e/kWh

ICEV, gasoline

65

172

Gasoline fuel, DISI, 290 g CO2e/kWh

ICEV, diesel

54

153

Diesel fuel, DICI, 300 g CO2e/kWh

HEV, gasoline

47

126

Gasoline fuel, DISI, 290 g CO2e/kWh

HEV, diesel

44

120

Diesel fuel, DICI, 300 g CO2e/kWh

PHEV, gasoline, 2020 EU grid mix

45

97

EU grid mix electricity (420 g CO2e/kWh) and gasoline
(300 g CO2e/kWh), DISI

PHEV, diesel, 2020 EU grid mix

43

96

EU grid mix electricity (420 g CO2e/kWh) and diesel
(320 g CO2e/kWh), DICI

BEV, 2020 EU grid mix

41

72

EU grid mix electricity, 420 g CO2e/kWh

A.2. COST BREAKDOWN OF DIFFERENT ELECTRIC POWER TRAINS
Table A 6. Assumed specifications for the 2015 power trains
BEV
Fuel cell (kW)

PHEV

HFCEV

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91

Motor (kW)

80

80

80

80

60

60

60

60

60

90

Battery (kWh)

24

36

48

72

2.7

5.4

8.2

10.9

16.0

1.0

Electric drive-cycle range
(NEDC) (km)

160

240

320

480

16

32

48

64

96

380*

Electric drive-cycle range
(NEDC) (mi)

100

150

200

300

10

20

30

40

60

240*

* Drive-cycle range on hydrogen fuel

22 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 

WORKING PAPER 2016-14

ELECTRIC VEHICLES: LITERATURE REVIEW OF TECHNOLOGY COSTS AND CARBON EMISSIONS

Table A 7. Cost breakdown of EV power train cost in €, 2015
Fuel cell
system

H2 storage

EV
transmission

Other EV
systems(a)

Electric
motor
system(b)

Battery pack

ICE credits(c)

Total

BEV

Unit cost

-

-

280

740

110+21 kW-1

250 kWh-1 (d)

- 3,160

-

BEV-100

-

-

280

740

1,790

6,000

- 3,160

5,560

BEV-150

-

-

280

740

1,790

9,000

- 3,160

8,650

BEV-200

-

-

280

740

1,790

12,000

- 3,160

11,650

BEV-300

-

-

280

740

1,790

18,000

- 3,160

17,650

PHEV

Unit cost

-

-

-

740

110+21 kW-1

330 kWh-1 (e)

-

-

PHEV-10

-

-

-

740

1,370

891

-

3,001
3,892

PHEV-20

-

-

-

740

1,370

1,782

-

PHEV-30

-

-

-

740

1,370

2,706

-

4,816

PHEV-40

-

-

-

740

1,370

3,597

-

5,707

PHEV-60

-

-

-

740

1,370

5,280

-

7,390

HFCEV

Unit cost
HFCEV
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)

225 kW-1

2,600

280

390

110+21 kW-1

630 kWh-1 (f)

- 3,160

-

20,520

2,600

280

390

2,008

630

- 3,160

23,193

Includes control unit (€150), regenerative braking system (€240), and for BEVs and PHEVs only: onboard charger (€350).
Includes fixed and variable (per kW) cost for electric motor, boost converter, and inverter.
Includes cost subtractions for non-existing combustion engine, exhaust pipe, and conventional transmission.
Central cost estimate at an assumed production volume in the mid-ten thousands; see section 10.1.
According to NAS (2013) PHEV batteries have a cost surcharge of roughly €80 per kWh over BEV batteries.
A
 ssumes the HFCEV battery price from NAS (2013) for 2020 (mid-range scenario) as battery prices declined faster than previously assumed; see
section 10.1.

WORKING PAPER 2016-14

INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL ON CLEAN TRANSPORTATION 23