See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266450977

Health and environmental benefits related to

electric vehicle introduction in EU countries

Article in Transportation Research Part D Transport and Environment December 2014

DOI: 10.1016/j.trd.2014.09.002

CITATIONS READS

16 2,439

4 authors:

Jurgen Buekers Mirja Van Holderbeke

Flemish Institute for Technological Research Flemish Institute for Technological Research
30 PUBLICATIONS 657 CITATIONS 38 PUBLICATIONS 915 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Johan G E A Bierkens Luc LR Int Panis

Flemish Institute for Technological Research Flemish Institute for Technological Research
58 PUBLICATIONS 653 CITATIONS 285 PUBLICATIONS 2,998 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

ExternE Transport View project

AVENUE View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Johan G E A Bierkens on 06 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Transportation Research Part D 33 (2014) 2638

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part D

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

Health and environmental benets related to electric vehicle

introduction in EU countries
Jurgen Buekers a,, Mirja Van Holderbeke a, Johan Bierkens a, Luc Int Panis a,b
a
Flemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), Boeretang 200, B-2400 Mol, Belgium
b
Transportation Research Institute (IMOB), University of Hasselt, B-3590 Diepenbeek, Belgium

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Introduction of electric vehicles (EV) can help to reduce CO2-emissions and the dependence
External costs on petroleum products. However, sometimes relatively larger air pollutant emissions from
Electric vehicle certain power plants can offset the benets of replacing internal combustion engine (ICE)
Particulate matter cars with EV. The goal of this study was to compare the societal impact (climate change &
Air pollution
health effects) of EV introduction in the EU-27 under different scenarios for electricity pro-
CO2 emission
Battery production
duction. The analysis shows that countries that rely on low air pollutant emitting fuel
mixes may gain millions of Euro/annum in terms of avoided external costs. Benets extend
across the EU, especially for emissions in small countries. Transport pollution affects the
local scale, while electricity pollution has a regional reach. Other European countries, that
depend on more polluting fuel mixes, may not benet at all from introducing EV. Data on
the present fuel mix were available for Belgium, France, Portugal, Denmark and the UK on a
detailed time scale (5300 basis) and show that the time dependent variation of external
cost for charging EV is dwarfed compared to the overall gain for introducing EV. The largest
benet is found in not driving an ICE car and avoiding local combustion related emissions.
Data on the present fuel mix were also available for Romania on a detailed time scale (100 )
and show that the variation in external costs is relatively larger than for the other countries
and at some moments it may be worth the effort, at least in theory, to reschedule EV
loading schemes taking into account social impact analysis.
2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Conventional cars with internal combustion engines (ICE) are still a major source of air pollutants such as carbon dioxide
(CO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), black carbon (BC) and ne particulate matter (PM2.5; particles with an aerodynamic diameter
<2.5 lm) (Hausberger, 2010). Some of the emitted pollutants cause severe health effects, including premature mortality
(Dockery et al., 1993; Pope et al., 2004; WHO, 2005; Brook et al., 2010). The World Health Organisation WHO presently con-
siders PM2.5 mass as the most relevant indicator for assessing the impact of air pollution on human health (HEI, 2013).
Although ultrane particles are often blamed for causing health effects (Seaton et al., 1995), coarse particles from tire and
brake wear could be implicated as well (Riediker et al., 2008; Gasser et al., 2009). In urban areas the contribution of conven-
tional transport to PM2.5 concentrations is relatively large (Keuken et al., 2013). Direct emissions of ICE cars have an effect on
public health as well as on crops, buildings and the natural environment. From an environmental point of view, the replace-
ment of ICE cars with electric vehicles (EV) may be benecial for the climate because of the possible reduction of greenhouse

Corresponding author.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.09.002
1361-9209/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 J. Buekers et al. / Transportation Research Part D 33 (2014) 2638 27

gas emissions, particularly CO2 (Thiel et al., 2010; Van Vliet et al., 2011). On the other hand EV are also not 100% clean. When
EV are charged, the electricity required is produced by a wide range of different power plants (e.g. nuclear, gas, coal, . . .),
which may also be sources of air pollution.
Its a generally accepted strategy to nd a common denominator to express different public health and environmental
impacts in order to compare them. A standardized methodology is to convert emissions into monetary values proportionally
to the damage of the externalities they cause (Bickel and Friedrich, 2005; Maibach et al., 2008). This approach has been used
to compare the impacts of different fuels and engine technologies for cars (Int Panis et al., 2001, 2002, 2004). External costs
for electricity production are mainly determined by health effects and greenhouse gas emissions (Nijs et al., 2011). Other
categories considered are impacts on agriculture and on materials and buildings, biodiversity loss due to acidication and
eutrophication, impacts of the emissions to air of heavy metals, of emissions of radioactive substances and risks of waste
disposal, of biodiversity loss due to land use, accidents and noise and visual impact. In terms of external costs related to elec-
tricity generation these categories are relatively less important than the effects on health and climate. Health effects are dri-
ven by particulate matter pollution.
When EV are introduced in the car market and replace ICE cars, the emissions of air pollutants will increase at the site of
the power plants while the emissions of local road pollutants, often urban, will decrease. These differences in the type, size
and location of emissions need to be weighted in order to give an overall picture of environmental and health impacts and
related external costs. This study was set up to answer the following major research question: What are the differences in
health and environmental impacts of air pollution for each EU country when 5% of the ICE vehicle eet is replaced by EV in
the years 2010 and 2030? Additionally we study the maximum within-country difference in health and environmental
impact of air pollution related to the annual variability in electricity generation.
The latter analysis requires detailed time specic information on the countrys electricity fuel mix which is prone to high
uctuations. This detailed information was only publicly available and found for Belgium,1 France,2 Portugal,3 Denmark,4 the
U.K.5 and Romania.6
Electric vehicles considered in this study are entirely battery powered electric vehicles (BPEV). The impact is expressed in
external costs for each of the EU-27 member states. Data were not yet available for Croatia.
Health effect related pollutants for which external costs are available and which were studied here, are ammonia (NH3),
nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2), ne (PM2.5) and coarse (PM2.510) particulate matter and non-methane volatile
organic compounds (NMVOC) (Nijs et al., 2011). For the climate change impact we consider CO2 emissions as most of the
environmental impact is related to this (Ayalon et al., 2013). This study was done as part of the EU 7th Framework DATASIM
project (http://www.datasim-fp7.eu/).

Methodology

In general air pollution emissions related to electricity production and exhaust emissions for conventional ICE cars
(including well-to-tank emissions (WTT) and tank-to-wheel emissions (TTW)) were calculated for each of the EU-27 coun-
tries and multiplied by the specic countrys external cost per tonne of emission. An overview of major assumptions made in
this calculation exercise is given in Table 1. The WTT emissions were taken into account to get a more complete picture of the
emissions during the entire life cycle of the fuel. Therefore, in a nal analysis also emissions related to battery production for
EV have been included, corresponding to ICEs WTT emissions. Vehicle production, transportation, maintenance and end of
life (EoL) were not considered because for the pollutants studied here, they are considered to be very similar for ICE and EV
cars of the same market segment. When calculating the replacement of ICE cars by EV, the assumption was made that the
country specic gasoline/diesel ratio was kept constant over time (EC, 2012) and that one EV replaces one ICE car. The
difference between external costs for electricity production dedicated to charging EV and external costs related to replacing
ICE cars and avoiding their emissions gives the total benet or loss. The analysis was performed according to the ExternE
methodology developed by the European Commission (Bickel and Friedrich, 2005; Maibach et al., 2008). In ExternE, health
cost estimates are based on considerations of both direct medical costs, absenteeism costs and on the willingness to pay to
avoid health effects from air pollution.

Emissions

Electricity production

Air emissions resulting from electricity production depend on the fuel mix which differs by country and varies over time.
For this study we have used the annual current (2010) and prospective (2030) energy mixes (EC, 2010). Nine fuel sources are

1
www.elia.be.
2
http://www.rte-france.com/en/.
3
http://www.ren.pt/.
4
http://energinet.dk/Flash/Forside/UK/index.html.
5
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm.
6
http://transelectrica.ro/widget/web/tel/sen-grac/-/SENGrac_WAR_SENGracportlet.
28 J. Buekers et al. / Transportation Research Part D 33 (2014) 2638

Table 1
Synthesis table with details on assumptions for analysis of replacement of ICE car by EV.

Theme Assumption Reference

Electricity production Considered fuel sources electricity production: nuclear, oil, hard coal, lignite, EC (2010)
gas, hydro, wind, biomass and photovoltaic
Fuel mixes electricity production for the year 2010 and 2030 EC (2010)
Pollutant emission units per electricity source Table 2; CASES (2010)
Unit external costs per emitted pollutant CASES (2010)
Classis cars with ICE Well-to-tank (WTT) emissions Euro 5; Table 3
Tank-to-wheel (TTW) emissions Table 3
Gasoline/diesel ratio kept constant at 2010 level EC (2012)
Unit external costs per emitted pollutant Appendix A1; van Essen et al. (2011)
EV Efciency: 0.25 kWh/km Duleep et al. (2011)
Market penetration rate: 5%; Generally it is assumed, that a new vehicle ETC/ACC (2009)
technology takes 10 to 20 years to comprise 5% of new sales.
Average distance per year per car: 10,000 km (for absolute cost calculation) ETC/ACC (2009), Duleep et al. (2011)
Place of introduction: urban
1 EV replaces 1 ICE car and vehicle occupancy assumed to be identical
Differences in production and end of life of EV and ICE were not accounted for
Battery production Battery capacity: 30 kWh Ishihara et al. (1999), Burnham et al.
(2006), Notter et al. (2010)
Electricity needed for battery production: 10,000 kWh Lewis et al. (2012)
Battery lifespan: 10 years ETC/ACC (2009)

considered: nuclear, oil, hard coal, lignite, gas, hydro, wind, biomass and photovoltaic. The individual percentage coal as well
as lignite in the country total fuel mix, was calculated based on the country proles provided by EURACOAL (2010) and the
evaluation of state aid for the coal industry by the EC (EC, 2006). Current pollutant emission per kWh electricity produced are
described for each fuel source in Table 2 taking into account a chain analysis of construction, operation, provision of fuel and
dismantling. Data are based on the life cycle inventory data from the FP6 project CASES (2010) but a distinction between e.g.
waterpower >10 MW or <10 MW, wind on-shore or off-shore, photovoltaic cell in open space or on roof was not made as
country specic information was not available. An average emission factor per pollutant (kg/kWh) was used for each type
of fuel source and kept identical for all EU countries. Differences in pollutant mass emitted per kWh electricity produced
are generally larger between the different fuel sources (e.g. coal versus nuclear) than between the technology specications
for one type of fuel source (e.g. photovoltaic in open space or on roof). The CO2 emissions reported in Table 2 are in agree-
ment with those reported in literature (Silva et al., 2009). Nuclear power, biomass red power, wind power, solar power,
hydro power and geothermal power have negligible CO2 emissions compared with classic combustion based power plants.
When the total percentage of electricity produced by these nine types of energy sources is calculated, most of the energy
production is covered i.e. total percentages amount up to 99% in all EU countries for the year 2010 except for Italy and Por-
tugal where a minor part of the total energy production came from other sources (e.g. geothermal energy). For the year 2030
the situation is predicted to be more or less similar. It was assumed that EV introduced in a country are charged with elec-
tricity generated within the country itself, thus not taking into account electricity im-(ex)port.
Currently a lot of effort is invested in reducing air pollutant emissions from electricity production and emissions may
even be lower in the future. In this study however, we assume that for the year 2030 only the fuel mix will differ and pol-
lutant emissions per kWh for these technologies will remain identical over time (Table 2). This analysis gives more insight in
the consequences of the use of different fuel mixes for electricity generation in the EU for the introduction of EV.

Table 2
General air pollutant emissions (kg/kWh) from electricity production (chain analysis of construction, operation, fuel provision and dismantling) for all EU
countries. Country and time specic energy mix determines absolute emissions. Data are based on the life cycle inventory data from the FP6 project CASES.1

Emissions (kg/kWh)
NH3 NOx SO2 PM2.510 PM2.5 NMVOC CO2
Nuclear power plant 6.30  106 4.27  105 6.86  105 2.34  106 6.19  106 6.55  106 1.21  102
Light oil gas turbine 3.15  106 6.51  104 9.90  104 1.28  105 3.71  105 2.79  104 8.53  101
Hard coal IGCC 1.83  105 5.98  104 3.34  104 1.76  105 1.53  105 6.09  105 6.19  101
Lignite IGCC 4.71  107 3.92  104 5.90  104 2.04  106 2.91  106 8.50  106 7.76  101
Natural gas 2.12  107 1.95  104 1.38  104 3.56  106 7.09  106 9.81  105 3.73  101
Waterpower 3.10  107 7.57  105 2.30  105 5.28  105 1.75  105 2.95  105 1.22  102
Wind 3.89  107 2.60  105 2.76  105 6.29  106 4.02  106 4.68  106 9.08  103
Biomass 4.93  105 1.76  103 1.43  104 4.86  105 4.25  105 2.22  104 1.80  102
Photovoltaic cells 2.45  106 1.12  104 1.68  104 2.90  105 2.41  105 1.96  105 5.35  102

IGCC: Integrated Gasication Combined Cycle.

1
: http://www.feem-project.net/cases/documents/1LCI_Data_080515.xls.
 J. Buekers et al. / Transportation Research Part D 33 (2014) 2638 29

Table 3
Air pollutant emissions (g/km) from transport by conventional vehicles with internal combustion engine (ICE). Distinction is made between WTT well-to-tank
and TTW tank-to-wheel emissions.

Pollutant
NOx SO2 PM NMVOC CO2
Tank-to-wheel emissions (g/km)
Gasoline 0.060$ 0.00076 0.005$ 0.068$ 142
Diesel 0.180$ 0.00085 0.005$ 0.05* 114
Well-to-tank emissions** (g/km)
Gasoline 0.068 0.106 0.004 0.34 15
Diesel 0.065 0.087 0.002 0.16 12
$
Euro 5 emission limits; REGULATION (EC) No 715/2007.
*
Estimated as difference between emissions of total hydrocarbons inclusive nitrogen oxides and emissions of nitrogen oxides for Euro 5 diesel emission
limits.

SO2 emission based on a consumption of 5 L fuel/100 km, a fuel sulphur content of 0.00001 g S/g fuel (Directive 2005/27/EC) and a fuel density of 755 g/
L for gasoline and 850 g/L for diesel (ECOSCORE, 2008).

Based on average emissions of Euro 5 cars. The average was taken for cars with cylinder capacity of 01399 cc and 14002000 cc (ECOSCORE, 2013).
**
A detailed description on the calculation of WTT emissions is provided in the document of ECOSCORE (ECOSCORE, 2008). Calculation is based on
indirect emission factors per pollutant, fuel density, fuel energy content and fuel consumption. The calculation is based on the original EU MEET project.

In addition, detailed (5300 basis) energy mix data were only available for Belgium, France, the U.K., Denmark, Portugal
and Romania. The calendar year 2012 was studied (except 2011 for Portugal) and the largest differences in external costs
related to electricity production examined. This analysis tries to answer the question how large the within-country maxi-
mum difference in health and environmental impact from air pollution is and how it compares to the total external cost
of replacement of ICE cars with EV.

ICE cars

TTW emissions for ICE cars were set identical to the Euro 5 standard which came into force in January 2011. Prior to Euro
5, there was no emission limit for particulate matter for gasoline cars and therefore these were not suited for this analysis.
Emissions used for ICE cars are given in Table 3. WTT emission (g/km) were set identical for all EU countries.

External costs

External costs related to air pollution (Euro/tonne pollutant emitted) for electricity production and for conventional
transport by ICE cars are country specic. They depend on meteorology, natural landscape, altitude and relative geographical
position of countries (Friedrich et al., 2001). Because emissions are released from high stacks, within-country externalities of
power plants are less dependent on local population density whereas externalities of cars are strongly site-specic (Bickel
and Friedrich, 2005; Maibach et al., 2008; Ayalon et al., 2013). External costs for electricity production are based on the
FP6 project CASES Cost Assessment for Sustainable Energy Systems (2010) and available from the website.7 External costs
for negative impacts on human health (NH3, NOx, SO2, PM2.5, PM2.510, NMVOC) and environment (CO2) were accounted for.
For the nuclear energy sector, costs for waste disposal and control are internalised in the electricity price. The nuclear sector
operates under regulations that impose stringent limits to nuclear waste. The nuclear industry nances funds to control the
waste as long as it may be harmful for human health and the environment but controversy exists.
External costs related to conventional transport by ICE cars (Euro/tonne) were derived from the study of van Essen et al.
(2011) (Appendix A1). Reported costs include health effects, damage to building materials and crop losses. External costs for
PM are entirely (i.e. 100%) related to health effects. The ratio (external costs of health effects)/(external costs of health effects,
building material damages, crop losses) was roughly estimated at 95% for NMVOC, 92% for SO2 and 98% for NOx (MIRA, 2011).
Based on these ratios external costs only for health impact were calculated. For Cyprus and Malta external costs for conven-
tional transport by ICE cars were not available in the study of van Essen et al. (2011). Therefore values for Malta were
assumed to be identical to those of Italy and data for Cyprus were estimated to be identical to those for Greece. When all
pollutants emitted by ICE cars are considered, particulate matter is mainly responsible for the health costs (Santos et al.,
2010). External costs for ICE cars are an order of magnitude lower than the price for diesel or gasoline consumed.
For CO2 emissions the external cost was set to 20 Euro/tonne (Friedrich and Bickel, 2001) and was identical for each coun-
try and identical for trafc and electricity production related emissions (Maibach et al., 2008). The price used for CO2 is high
compared to the current value of the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) but conservative (in the sense that
only damage is included that can be estimated with a reasonable certainty) as compared to the estimated cost of 40 Euro/
tonne calculated by Ayalon et al. (2013) and >50 Euro/tonne according to US-EPA (EPA, 2010).

7
http://www.feem-project.net/cases/documents/deliverables/ExternalCosts_per_unit_emission_080821.xls.
30 J. Buekers et al. / Transportation Research Part D 33 (2014) 2638

Urban versus non-urban areas

Transport related external costs for PM emissions depend strongly on the population density of the place where emissions
take place. Usually a difference is made between metropolitan, urban and non-urban zones with largest costs for metropol-
itan & urban zones where the population density and exposure (in terms of air pollution intake) is larger because of small
source receptor distances (Bickel and Friedrich, 2005). In our analysis it was assumed that EV are typically introduced in the
urban area.

Battery production

In a nal analysis of the replacement of ICE cars by EV, we also consider the emissions due to energy use for battery pro-
duction because we also took into account WTT emissions for ICE cars and attempt to quantify the benet (or loss) for EV
introduction in absolute values per country. The battery production process is often considered to be energy-intensive. Based
on numbers of Ishihara et al. (1999), Burnham et al. (2006) and Notter et al. (2010), average production energy for a lithium
battery is estimated at 2530 kWh/kg battery. For a battery of 300 kg, corresponding to 30 kWh (energy density  100 Wh/
kg), energy required for production is then equal to 75009000 kWh. Samaras and Meisterling (2008) estimated energy
needed for battery production, including recycling, at 47 kWh/kg battery. Lewis et al. (2012) published a relatively high
range of 10,00015,583 kWh for a battery of 30 kWh without and with recycling, respectively. Differences between different
studies may also be attributed to differences in battery type. Samaras and Meisterling (2008) and Lewis et al. (2012) consid-
ered batteries in plug-in hybrid electric vehicles whereas the other authors looked at entirely battery powered electric vehi-
cles. The value of 10,000 kWh per produced battery was taken forward in our calculations as a conservative estimate. This
value is a factor of 333 larger than the battery capacity of 30 kWh. Its thus possible that the production process uses more
energy than the batteries are ever going to stock and return during their use (Lewis et al., 2012). Of course this depends on
the cars energy efciency, the distance driven per year and the battery lifespan.
Assuming all batteries are produced in Europe, we applied the EU-27 average external cost for electricity production,
weighted by the countries absolute amount of electricity produced, to estimate the external cost for battery production
because more specic knowledge on the geographical spread of battery production in Europe is lacking. It is assumed that
the lifespan of a battery was 10 years (ETC/ACC, 2009; Duleep et al., 2011; ACS, 2013).
Further it was assumed that the total number of cars was kept constant over time based on statistics by EUROSTAT
(2012), that the market penetration rate of EVs was 5% (corresponding to revised IEA Blue Map scenario (ETC/ACC, 2009)
and mid-range scenario by Berr, 2008 who estimated a 3% penetration rate for 2020; Generally it is assumed, that a
new vehicle technology takes 1020 years to comprise 5% of new sales.) and that the distance driven per year per EV was
equal to 10,000 km. This corresponds to 27 km a day which is close to the average daily driving distance of 26 km as reported
by EUROSTAT for passenger transport (EUROSTAT, 2009). With a battery efciency of 0.25 kWh/km and a battery capacity of
30 kWh, 100,000 km/10 year would be equal to a realistic number of 833 complete chargedischarge cycles (ETC/ACC, 2009;
Duleep et al., 2011). In the analysis performed by Ayalon et al. (2013) a penetration rate of 3% of EV into the market leads to
an increase of the electricity demand by 0.40.6% in France, Denmark and Israel. In our analysis we start from a penetration
rate of 5% and assume that the extra electricity demand will be marginal and covered by current fuel mixes. In other words,
no extra electricity plants need to be installed to charge EV. In Germany, a large-scale introduction of EV (50100% of the
entire vehicle eet) would increase the overall electricity demand by hardly more than 10% (Engel, 2007; Kendall, 2008).
The chairman of the EURELECTRIC task force on EV illustrated that a theoretical complete shift towards electric vehicles
in the EU-27 would increase electricity consumption from todays 3100 TWh to 3570 TWh an increase of only 15% which
may largely be accommodated by idle capacity during the night (Eurelectric, 2009).

Currency

Costs are expressed in Euros for the year 2010. External costs for electricity production (Euro/tonne) were corrected from
the year 2009 to the year 2010 based on the HICP (Harmonised Indices of Consumer Prices; EUROSTAT, 2013). A correction
factor of 1.02 was used for the EU-27. The external costs given for conventional transport (Euro/km) for the year 2008 were
corrected to the year 2010 based on the HICP by application of a correction factor of 1.03 for the EU-27. All external costs
given in the results section are expressed in Euro 2010.

Results and discussion

Electricity production

The weighted average external cost from electricity production in terms of health and environmental impact for
producing electricity in the EU-27 in 2010 was equal to 1.2 Eurocent/kWh (see Table 4). Lowest external cost was equal
to 0.2 Eurocent/kWh for Sweden and largest cost was equal to 3.3 Eurocent/kWh for Cyprus. External costs for countries with
a larger proportion of energy production by nuclear power like France and Belgium were 0.4 and 0.6 Eurocent/kWh,
 J. Buekers et al. / Transportation Research Part D 33 (2014) 2638 31

Table 4
External costs (health and climate impact) of electricity production in EU countries.

Country External costs electricity production

(Eurocent 2010) per kWh
2010* 2030*
Belgium 0.6 1.2
Bulgaria 1.3 0.9
Czech Republic 1.9 1.6
Denmark 1.2 0.9
Germany 1.8 1.8
Estonia 1.9 1.6
Ireland 1.2 1.0
Greece 1.8 1.3
Spain 0.8 0.7
France 0.4 0.3
Italy 1.3 1.0
Cyprus 3.3 1.5
Latvia 0.6 0.7
Lithuania 1.0 0.4
Luxembourg 1.4 1.3
Hungary 1.6 1.6
Malta 2.5 1.1
Netherlands 1.8 1.6
Austria 1.0 1.0
Poland 2.6 2.2
Portugal 0.8 0.6
Romania 1.9 1.5
Slovenia 1.2 0.9
Slovakia 1.2 1.3
Finland 0.6 0.4
Sweden 0.2 0.2
UK 1.3 0.9
Average** 1.2 1.0
*
Based on fuel mixes for electricity production for the year 2010 & 2030 as published
by the EC (2010).
**
Weighted average by absolute amount of energy produced in each EU country.

respectively. The fuel mix in Sweden consists of 43% nuclear and 43% hydro power. For Cyprus 99% of the fuel mix consists
of burning petroleum products. The cleaner the energy mix in terms of air emissions, the smaller the external costs.

Shift from ICE cars to EV

External costs for the shift of ICE cars to EVs in Eurocent per kWh electricity are given per country in Table 5. External
costs for ICE cars were calculated for WTT and TTW emissions. Annual energy mixes for electricity production for the years
2010 and 2030 were used for EV. Battery production was not taken into account in these results as the impact of battery
production on climate and health was calculated based on an EU-27 weighted average external cost per kWh electricity pro-
duced (see methodology). Driving is a continuous process and the energy required for battery production is limited and was
only taken into account in a later analysis which shows annual absolute costs per country. External costs related to conven-
tional transport (Eurocent/km) were converted to Eurocent/kWh based on the assumption that one ICE car is replaced by
one EV and the energy efciency of an EV is equal to 0.25 kWh/km (Duleep et al., 2011).
Table 5 shows that in 2010 the option of replacing ICE cars with EV resulted in largest health and environmental benets
for France (2.6 Eurocent/kWh). France is a country with a low polluting fuel mix in terms of producing electricity and air
emissions. In 2010 >70% was generated by nuclear energy. External costs for a replacement were close to zero for Estonia and
Poland and positive for Cyprus in 2010. These countries have relative more polluting fuel mixes for producing electricity.
More than 90% of the electricity produced in Estonia and Poland in 2010 came from coal and lignite red plants while in
Cyprus >90% of the electricity was generated from burning petroleum products. Burning coal and petroleum products
releases relatively large amounts of CO2. The cleaner the electric energy production mix for charging EVs, the larger the ben-
et for health and environment (Ayalon et al., 2013). In terms of CO2 emission per EV driven km, the EU-27 average CO2
emission is equal to 88 g/km in 2010 (min: 10 g/km for Sweden; max: 212 g/km for Cyprus; data not given for each country)
which is substantially lower than CO2 emissions of ICE cars (see Table 3).
When the shift in fuel mix for electricity production in the year 2010 and 2030 is compared, benets will be larger in 2030
than in 2010 for most countries except for Belgium, Latvia and Slovakia (see Table 5). In absolute terms total external costs
become negative for all EU countries in 2030, which means EV introduction is a benet (not taking into account battery pro-
duction yet). The share of electricity production by coal and oil red power plants will decrease to less than 75% for all EU
32 J. Buekers et al. / Transportation Research Part D 33 (2014) 2638

Table 5
External costs (health and climate impact) for the replacement of a car with internal combustion engine (ICE) with an electric vehicle (EV). For ICE cars WTT and
TTW emissions were taken into account and for EV electricity production assuming different fuel mixes in 2010 and 2030. Battery production for EV was not
accounted for in this table. Energy efciency of EV was set at 0.25 kWh/km.

Country External costs (Eurocent 2010) per kWh electricity*

2010** 2030**
Health CO2 Total Health CO2 Total
Belgium 1.6 0.9 2.4 1.4 0.4 1.8
Bulgaria 0.4 0.5 0.9 0.5 0.7 1.2
Czech Republic 0.6 0.3 1.0 0.7 0.5 1.2
Denmark 0.7 0.6 1.2 0.7 0.8 1.5
Germany 0.9 0.5 1.4 0.9 0.5 1.4
Estonia 0.2 0.2 <0.01 0.3 <0.01 0.3
Ireland 0.8 0.4 1.2 0.9 0.6 1.4
Greece 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.8
Spain 0.6 0.6 1.3 0.7 0.8 1.4
France 1.5 1.1 2.6 1.5 1.1 2.7
Italy 0.9 0.5 1.4 1.0 0.8 1.8
Cyprus 0.8 0.4 1.2 0.2 0.4 0.6
Latvia 0.6 0.9 1.5 0.4 0.9 1.4
Lithuania 0.7 0.5 1.2 0.8 1.0 1.8
Luxembourg 1.8 0.5 2.3 1.8 0.5 2.3
Hungary 0.6 0.7 1.3 0.5 0.8 1.3
Malta 0.7 0.5 0.3 1.3 0.4 1.7
Netherlands 0.8 0.5 1.3 0.8 0.6 1.5
Austria 1.5 0.9 2.3 1.4 0.9 2.3
Poland <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.1 0.1 0.3
Portugal 0.4 0.6 1.0 0.4 0.8 1.2
Romania 0.1 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.8 0.9
Slovenia 1.0 0.7 1.7 1.2 0.9 2.1
Slovakia 0.8 0.8 1.6 0.7 0.8 1.5
Finland 0.6 0.8 1.5 0.7 1.0 1.6
Sweden 0.8 1.2 2.0 0.8 1.2 2.0
UK 0.7 0.5 1.2 0.8 0.8 1.6
*
A negative external cost in the table indicates a net benet.
**
Fuel mix electricity production for the year 2010 & 2030 is published by the EC (2010).

countries. For Latvia and Slovakia there is a shift from gas to biomass. Particulate matter emission is larger for biomass than
for gas which explains the observation that there will be a small reduction in benets in 2030 as compared to 2010. In the
2030 scenario for Belgium there will be no more electricity production from nuclear power, the most important power
source in 2010. This will be compensated by an increase in the share of electricity production by coal (among others) which
causes more air pollution than nuclear power. The consequence is that there is a relatively large decrease in benets between
2010 and 2030 for introducing EV in Belgium. In a study of Ji et al. (2012) it was also shown based on emissions and intake
factors that for China, where the main electricity source are coal-red power plants, the impact on health and environment
by the replacement of ICE cars by EV becomes larger. The study of Hawkins et al. (2013) in Europe mentioned that it is coun-
terproductive for the climate to promote EV in regions where electricity is produced from oil, coal and lignite combustion. In
the scenario of the EC (2010) included for Germany there is a shift from nuclear power in 2010 towards wind energy in 2030
which explains the uniform external costs over time, in contrast to the shift for Belgium.
In Table 6 annual absolute costs, including battery production, are given for the introduction of EV. When the change in
absolute costs between 2010 and 2030 is compared there is only a decrease in benet for Belgium. The total benet per year
was largest for France and equal to 98 MEuro in 2010 and 104 MEuro in 2030. This is in the same range as estimated by
Ayalon et al. (2013). For Estonia, Greece, Cyprus, Malta and Poland there is no benet (negative external cost) for the intro-
duction of EVs due to the relative more polluting energy mix for electricity production in all these countries in 2010 but only
for Estonia and Poland in 2030 (Table 6). When absolute costs are considered the impact on environment and health was on
average equally important across the EU-27. When external costs for the replacement of ICE cars with EV are compared to
the gross domestic product (GDP) of EU countries, the external costs are diminutive (e.g. for France < 0.01%).

External costs of current detailed electricity production for France, Belgium, the U.K., Romania, Denmark and Portugal

Annual average external costs for electricity generation differ between countries because of differences in the fuel mix of
their power plants. Likewise, the external costs within each country are not constant, but depend on the specic power
plants that are active at a given time. This uctuates on a daily basis depending on total power needs and scheduled outages
for maintenance of production facilities. France and Belgium are countries in which a large stable part of the electricity is
 J. Buekers et al. / Transportation Research Part D 33 (2014) 2638 33

Table 6
External costs (health and climate impact) for the replacement of cars with an internal combustion engine
(ICE) with electric vehicles (EV). For ICE cars WTT and TTW emissions were taken into account and for EV
electricity production and battery production. Energy efciency of EV was set at 0.25 kWh/km and the market
penetration rate at 5%. Total number of vehicles was constant for period 20102030. Yearly distance driven per
car was set at 10,000 km.

Country Annual external costs (Million Euro 2010)*

2010** 2030**
Belgium 14.5 10.5
Bulgaria 1.3 2.6
Czech Republic 3.1 5.3
Denmark 2.4 3.5
Germany 54.3 57.6
Estonia 0.4 0.1
Ireland 2.1 3.0
Greece 1.2 3.4
Spain 27.3 35.6
France 98.2 103.7
Italy 49.4 70.7
Cyprus 1.2 0.1
Latvia 1.3 1.3
Lithuania 1.7 3.3
Luxembourg 0.8 0.9
Hungary 3.7 3.9
Malta 0.1 0.4
Netherlands 8.5 11.3
Austria 12.1 12.5
Poland 12.9 2.9
Portugal 3.6 5.8
Romania 0 2.9
Slovenia 1.8 2.4
Slovakia 2.5 2.5
Finland 3.9 4.8
Sweden 9.3 9.7
UK 30.3 46.6
*
A negative external cost in the table indicates a net benet.
**
Fuel mix electricity production for the year 2010 & 2030 is published by the EC (2010).

produced by nuclear power (on average >55%). The 5th (P5) and 95th percentile (P95) of external costs for electricity pro-
duction for the calendar year 2012 are presented in Table 7. The difference between the P5 and P95 is <0.4 Eurocent/kWh
and the avoided external cost by not driving an ICE car is 3.0 Eurocent/kWh (Appendix A2) which is an order of magnitude
higher. Based on the societal impact, its a benet to introduce EV and charging times can be based on non-environmental
considerations. The UK is a country in which a stable part of the electricity is produced by nuclear (23 6%), coal (44 6%)
and gas plants (26 7%). The difference between the P5 and P95 for external costs related to electricity production is
<0.4 Eurocent/kWh (Table 7) while avoiding emissions by not driving an ICE car corresponds to 2.5 Eurocent/kWh (Appen-
dix A2) which results in a net benet for introducing EV cars and shows again that charging times can be based on non-envi-
ronmental considerations. Denmark and Portugal are countries without nuclear facilities to generate electricity. In Portugal,
a minor part of the energy is produced by geothermal plants in the Azores. In both Denmark and Portugal, a large part of the
electricity is produced by wind power which is climate dependent and variable. In Portugal the difference between the P5
and P95 of external costs for electricity generation is equal to 0.6 Eurocent/kWh while in Denmark this is 1.0 Eurocent/kWh
(Table 7). The difference between the P5 and P95 becomes relatively larger compared to the external cost for not driving an
ICE car. But for both countries it is still a benet to introduce EV. Romania is a country in which there is a large differentiation
in energy sources and the energy produced by hydropower is variable (20 10%). Depending on the energy mix, the intro-
duction of EV may be in some cases a net benet in terms of external costs or a net loss in other cases. The external cost for
not driving an ICE car is equal to 2.4 Eurocent/kWh (Appendix A2) and the P5 external cost for electricity generation is
1.8 Eurocent/kWh while the P95 external cost for electricity generation is 2.9 Eurocent/kWh. At the P5 of external cost for
electricity generation there is a net benet of replacing an ICE car by an EV (1.82.4 = 0.6 Eurocent/kWh) while at the
P95 there is a net loss (2.92.4 = 0.5 Eurocent/kWh). The largest within one hour difference in external costs for electricity
production for the year 2012 was equal to 0.7 Eurocent/kWh. This equals a shift from a total external cost of 3.2 Eurocent/
kWh to 2.5 Eurocent/kWh. This shift in external cost is explained by a large increase in electricity produced by hydropower
(from 8% to 32%) and the decrease in electricity produced by oil (from 22% to 16%) and coal (from 52% to 39%). In such
situation it may be useful to adapt EV charging schedules, if this is technically possible and taking into account the real
electricity price, as it may have a large inuence on the social benet or loss.
 34
Table 7
Analysis of detailed electricity generation data for France, Belgium, the U.K., Romania, Denmark and Portugal.

Country Web link Year Unit P5*/P95*/ MW Eurocent/ A combination of percentage electricity produced per energy source at P5 or P95
Max within 1 h kWh
Oil Coal Gas Nuclear Wind Solar Hydro Geo-Thermal$ Other***
difference**
France http://www.rte-france.com/en/ 2012 150 P5 57,732 0.25 1% <1% 2% 83% 2% <1% 12%
P95 89,455 0.46 1% 5% 10% 66% 4% <1% 14%
Max within 1 h 0.10
difference

J. Buekers et al. / Transportation Research Part D 33 (2014) 2638

Belgium www.elia.be 2012 150 P5 8311 0.61 <1% <1% 23% 67% 2% 1% 7%
P95 11,606 0.96 <1% 7% 42% 45% <1% <1% 5%
Max within 1 h 0.21
difference
UK http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/ 2012 300 P5 24,115 1.09 <1% 34% 27% 31% 5% 3%
bsp_home.htm
P95 30,487 1.45 <1% 54% 24% 19% 1% 2%
Max within 1 h 0.13
difference
Romania http://transelectrica.ro/widget/web/tel/ 2012 100 P5 7403 1.83 5% 37% 19% 9% 30%
sen-grac/-/SENGrac_WAR_SENGracportlet
P95 6760 2.95 23% 41% 21% <1% 15%
Max within 1 h 0.73
difference
Denmark http://energinet.dk/Flash/Forside/UK/ 2012 50 P5 4963 0.55 23% 8% 69%
index.html
P95 3226 1.59 71% 25% 4%
Max within 1 h 0.41
difference
Portugal http://www.ren.pt/ 2011 150 P5 3562 0.20 3% 7% 2% 68% 21%
P95 5481 0.82 30% 37% 8% 13% 12%
Max within 1 h 0.27
difference
*
The P5 and the P95 represent the 5th and 95th percentile of the total external costs for electricity production for the whole calendar year.
**
Data for the whole year were analysed and the largest within 1 h difference in external costs searched for.
***
Considered here as biomass energy plant.
$
Emissions particulate matter & CO2 assumed to be in the same order of magnitude as wind energy.
 J. Buekers et al. / Transportation Research Part D 33 (2014) 2638 35

Methodological strengths and weaknesses

The fact that the WTT emissions were set identical for all EU-27 countries is a methodological weakness. In reality emis-
sions caused by fuel transport to countries that are located further inland will probably be larger. In addition, the corre-
sponding external cost for battery production was calculated based on a weighted average external cost for electricity
production in the EU-27 as it is not known in which specic countries the largest number of batteries would be produced.
The present eet consists of vehicles older than the Euro 5 type and real emissions in normal trafc are higher than emis-
sion testing in laboratory which leads to a global underestimation of external costs for conventional cars (Hausberger, 2010).
For the replacement of ICE cars by EV the benet will therefore be underestimated. Current analysis is thus conservative. For
CO2 emissions the damage cost was set to 20 Euro/tonne which is also a conservative assumption.
Health effects were only studied for the considered pollutants. External costs are mainly driven by particulate matter pol-
lution. Other pollutants (e.g. metals) could be considered as well but in that case estimates should also be made on emissions
of metals coming from breaking ware which lies outside current objectives.
The emissions for electricity generating power sources (Table 2) were set equal across all EU countries whereas in reality
there is variation depending on the technological specications. A real variation is also present in the emissions of ICE cars
whereas they are set here identical to the Euro 5 type. Across the EU, the differences in energy mixes for electricity produc-
tion might outscore in this analysis the differences in emissions for electricity sources of the same fuel type but with differ-
ent technological specications.
The external cost for electricity generation by nuclear plants can be debated. Estimates of waste disposal and major acci-
dents are controversial. The low external cost for nuclear power plants do not sufce to allay concerns about accidents, long-
lived radioactive waste, the right to impose impacts on future generations (Rabl, 2001).
A major strength of this study is that the applied methodology was consistent for all EU countries and results therefore
give insight in differences between EU countries that depend on a widely variable energy mix for electricity production. Also
for some countries very detailed electricity generation data was compiled and analysed to enable a comparison of the exter-
nal costs for charging EV in function of time with the external costs for EV introduction.

Conclusions

The study goal was to get an estimate of the impact on environment and health for the replacement of internal combus-
tion engine (ICE) cars by electric vehicles (EV) and this for all EU-27 countries. The impact was expressed as external costs
conform the European ExternE methodology. The energy for EV comes from electricity production plants that differ in tech-
nology and fuel between countries and over time. Annual benets range from 104 MEuro in France for a 5% market pene-
tration rate, an annual distance/car travelled equal to 10,000 km and the estimated prospective fuel mix used for the year
2030, to 3 MEuro (i.e. cost) for Poland which is related to more polluting fuel mixes for electricity production in Poland
(coal and lignite). The size of the external cost effects of switching vehicle types appear to be generally rather small com-
pared to the GDP, but also differ signicantly between countries depending on the fuels used. Introduction of EV would thus
not be associated with a monetary benet in each EU country unless local electricity production sources change to cleaner
processes. The shift towards a more green and sustainable economy with a growing share of renewables could also be ben-
ecial for the introduction of EV. The estimate for 2030 is conservative as emissions of ICE cars were set identical to the Euro
5 standard, emissions of electricity production plants were set identical to present emissions and the external cost for CO2
was only set at 20 Euro/tonne. On average across the EU, the health impact mainly due to emissions of particulate matter
was equally important as the impact on the environment (CO2). A detailed analysis of current national time dependent uc-
tuations in fuel mix for electricity production for EV charging in Belgium, France, Denmark and Portugal demonstrated that
the within-country difference in external costs related to differences in fuel mix at a specic moment in time are negligible
compared to the overall gain of introducing EV. Largest benets are found for not driving an ICE car. Therefore it is important
that policies also remain focussed on trying to diminish the use of ICE private cars for short urban trips and stimulate walk-
ing, cycling, public transport and carpooling. Improvements in energy efciency of EV and decarbonisation of the electricity
production will also further contribute to a more clean environment. On the other hand also conventional internal combus-
tion technology is likely to further improve over the coming decades. In Romania detailed data on electricity generation
showed that its a country in which there is a large differentiation in energy sources and the energy produced by hydropower
is variable. Depending on the energy mix, the introduction of EV may be in some cases a net benet in terms of external costs
while in other cases its a net loss. The maximum within hour difference in external costs for electricity production compared
to the external costs for not driving an ICE car is relatively large compared to other countries and in some cases it may be
relevant to reschedule the time of charging (for minimizing external costs), taking into account the real electricity price and
the technical constraints. However, the introduction of EV will be a stimulus to introduce more green or less carbon-inten-
sive energy sources as e.g. wind turbines. Currently, the power generated by wind turbines cant be stored and sometimes
the offer of energy is larger than the demand. Electric vehicles may not only act as a transport device but also as an energy
storage capacity. Therefore also the introduction of EV may stimulate the introduction of e.g. wind turbines or the other way
around.
 36 J. Buekers et al. / Transportation Research Part D 33 (2014) 2638

Table A1
Marginal external costs road transport (van Essen et al., 2011).

Euro/tonne [2008]
Country Pollutant
NOx SO2 PM NMOVC
Metropolitan Urban Non-urban
Belgium 8526 10,028 483,400 156,000 104,400 2470
Bulgaria 6958 5704 70,500 22,700 18,100 380
Czech Republic 10,388 8740 355,400 114,500 88,200 1045
Denmark 5194 5244 436,400 140,700 51,300 1140
Germany 12,446 10,028 430,300 138,800 83,900 1330
Estonia 2744 4140 261,700 85,000 44,200 570
Ireland 4312 4968 537,200 173,400 56,200 1045
Greece 2646 5336 338,600 109,100 47,700 570
Spain 3528 4784 354,000 114,000 48,700 760
France 10,290 9108 438,600 141,200 87,700 1330
Italy 9310 8004 397,400 128,400 72,300 1045
Cyprus 2646 5336 338,600 109,100 47,700 570
Latvia 3920 4600 245,300 78,900 45,600 665
Lithuania 5488 5244 266,300 86,500 53,300 760
Luxembourg 12,446 9476 877,100 282,400 125,000 2280
Hungary 12,152 8372 288,900 93,000 74,100 950
Malta 9310 8004 397,400 128,400 72,300 1045
Netherlands 8624 11,776 485,000 156,500 94,800 1995
Austria 13,328 9200 482,200 155,900 80,700 1520
Poland 7644 7728 248,900 79,900 74,700 950
Portugal 1470 3496 278,100 89,600 41,200 760
Romania 9506 6808 49,100 15,800 12,600 760
Slovenia 11,270 8188 363,500 116,800 75,300 1330
Slovakia 10,780 8096 293,900 94,100 79,400 855
Finland 2548 3220 432,600 139,400 36,100 570
Sweden 4018 3864 437,500 140,700 42,600 760
UK 5096 6716 463,100 149,100 72,300 1330

Table A2
Calculated benet (negative external costs) for not driving ICE car (but
using EV instead). External costs are only based on pollutants emitted
by ICE cars. Assumptions are listed in Table 1.

External costs (Eurocent 2010)

per kWh electricity
Belgium 3.0
Bulgaria 2.1
Czech Republic 2.9
Denmark 2.4
Germany 3.2
Estonia 1.9
Ireland 2.4
Greece 2.1
Spain 2.1
France 3.0
Italy 2.8
Cyprus 2.1
Latvia 2.0
Lithuania 2.2
Luxembourg 3.7
Hungary 2.9
Malta 2.8
Netherlands 3.1
Austria 3.3
Poland 2.5
Portugal 1.8
Romania 2.4
Slovenia 3.0
Slovakia 2.8
Finland 2.1
Sweden 2.2
UK 2.5
 J. Buekers et al. / Transportation Research Part D 33 (2014) 2638 37

Acknowledgements

The work was supported by the European Union through the FP7 project DATASIM (http://www.datasim-fp7.eu/). We
thank Wouter Nijs for providing us with the original calculations and data from the FP6 project CASES and the electricity
transmission grid operators for making the detailed electricity generation data by fuel source publicly available.

Appendix A.

See Tables A1 and A2.

References

ACS, American Chemical Society, 2013. Understanding the Life of Lithium Ion Batteries in Electric Vehicles. Meeting of the ACS. http://www.acs.org/content/
acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2013/april/understanding-the-life-of-lithium-ion-batteries-in-electric-vehicles.html.
Ayalon, O., Flicstein, B., Shtibelman, A., 2013. Benets of reducing air emissions: replacing conventional with electric passenger vehicles. J. Environ. Prot. 4,
10351043.
BERR, Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and Department for Transport, 2008. Investigation into the Scope for the Transport Sector
to Switch to Electric Vehicles and Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles. http://www.bis.gov.uk/les/le48653.pdf.
Bickel, P., Friedrich, R., 2005. Externalities of Energy, Methodology 2005 Update. Institut fur Energiewirtschaft un Rationelle Energieanwendung IER,
Universitat Stuttgart. http://ec.europa.eu/research/energy/pdf/kina_en.pdf.
Brook, R.D., Rajagopalan, S., Pope, C.A., Brook, J.R., Bhatnagar, A., Diez-Roux, A.V., Holguin, F., Hong, Y.L., Luepker, R.V., Mittleman, M.A., Peters, A., Siscovick,
D., Smith, S.C., Whitsel, L., Kaufman, J.D., 2010. Particulate matter air pollution and cardiovascular disease an update to the scientic statement from
the American Heart Association. Circulation 121, 23312378.
M.Wang, Burnham, Whu, Y., 2006. Development and Applications of GREET 2.7: The Transportation Vehicle-Cycle Model. Argonne National Laboratory,
Chicago, Argonne.
CASES, Cost Assessment for Sustainable Energy Systems, 2010. Cases is a Co-ordination Action funded by the European Commission under the 6th
Framework Programme, Priority 6.1.3.2.5., Sustainable Energy Systems. http://www.feem-project.net/cases/downloads_deliverables.php.
Dockery, D.W., Pope, C.A., Xu, X.P., Spengler, J.D., Ware, J.H., Fay, M.E., Ferris, B.G., Speizer, F.E., 1993. An association between air-pollution and mortality in 6
United-States cities. New Engl. J. Med. 329, 17531759.
Duleep, G., van Essen, H., Kampman, B., Grnig, M., 2011. Assessment of Electric Vehicle and Battery Technology. CE Delft. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/
policies/transport/vehicles/docs/d2_en.pdf.
EC, European Commission, 2006. Evaluation of State Aid for the Coal Industry. A report by Europe Economics and Fraunhofer ISI with BSR Sustainability and
the Krakow Institute for Sustainable Energy. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/coal/studies/doc/2006_10_report_europe_economics.pdf.
EC, European Commission, 2010. EU Energy Trends to 2030. Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/energy/observatory/trends_2030/doc/
trends_to_2030_update_2009.pdf.
EC, European Commission, 2012. EU Transport in Figures, Statistical Pocketbook 2012. Publications Ofce of the European Union, Luxembourg. http://
ec.europa.eu/transport/facts-fundings/statistics/doc/2012/pocketbook2012.pdf.
ECOSCORE, 2008. Overzicht ECOSCORE Berekening voor Licht Vervoer. VUB, Vrije Universiteit Brussel. http://etec.vub.ac.be/publications/
2008Ecoscore239.pdf.
ECOSCORE, 2013. Hoe Berekenen we een Ecoscore als Bepaalde Data Ontbreken. VUB, Vrije Universiteit Brussel. http://www.ecoscore.be/hoe-berekenen-
we-een-ecoscore-als-bepaalde-data-ontbreken.
Engel, T., 2007. Plug-in Hybrids Abschtzung des Potentials zur Reduktion der CO2-Emissionen im Pkw Verkehr bei verstrkter Nutzung von elektrischen
Antrieben im Zusammenhang mit Plug-in Hybrid Fahrzeugen, Deutsche Gesellschaft fr Sonnenenergie e.V.
ETC/ACC, European Topic Centre on Air Pollution and Climate Change Mitigation, 2009. Environmental Impacts and Impact on the Electricity Market of a
Large Scale Introduction of Electric Cars in Europe Critical Review of Literature. http://acm.eionet.europa.eu/reports/
ETCACC_TP_2009_4_electromobility.
EURACOAL, European Association for Coal and Lignite, 2010. Country proles. http://www.euracoal.org/pages/layout1sp_graphic.php?idpage=15.
Eurelectric, 2009. Making Europe Carbon-Neutral by 2050: The Vision of the Electricity Industry Sector Focus. EU Sustainable Energy week. http://
www.eurelectric.org/Highlights/EUSustainableEnergyWeek/Intro.htm.
EUROSTAT, 2009. Panorama of transport. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-DA-09-001/EN/KS-DA-09-001-EN.PDF.
EUROSTAT, 2012. Stock of Vehicles by Category and NUTS 2 Regions. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/
Stock_of_vehicles_at_regional_level.
EUROSTAT, 2013. HICP Harmonised Indices of Consumer Prices. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=prc_hicp_aind&lang=en.
Friedrich, R., Bickel, P., 2001. Environmental External Costs of Transport. Institute of Energy Economics and the Rational Use of Energy (IER), University of
Stuttgart.
Friedrich, R., Rabl, A., Spadaro, J., 2001. Quantifying the costs of air pollution: the ExternE project of the EC. Pollution Atmosphrique. http://
www.arirabl.org/Public._by_Topic_les/ResultsExternE-PollAtmos.pdf.
Gasser, M., Riediker, M., Mueller, L., Perrenoud, A., Blank, F., Gehr, P., Rothen-Rutishauser, B., 2009. Toxic effects of brake wear particles on epithelial lung
cells in vitro. Part. Fibre Toxicol. 6 (30).
Hausberger, S., 2010. Fuel Consumption and Emissions of Modern Passenger Cars, Carried out under contract of the Bundesministerium fr Land-und
Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Report Nr. I-25/10 Haus-Em 07/10/676 from 29.11.2010. http://www.ermes-group.eu/public/reports/
2010-TUG-fuel-consumption-cars.pdf.
Hawkins, T.R., Singh, B., Majeau-Bettez, G., Strmman, A.H., 2013. Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles. J.
Ind. Ecol. 17, 5364.
HEI Health Effects Institute, 2013. Understanding the Health Effects of Air Pollution: Recent advances to Inform EU Policies. Workshop of the Health Effects
Institute, Brussels. http://www.healtheffects.org/Workshops/Brussels2013/brussels2013-agenda.htm.
Int Panis, L., De Nocker, L., De Vlieger, I., Torfs, R., 2001. Trends and uncertainty in air pollution impacts and external costs of Belgian passenger car trafc.
Int. J. Vehicle Des. 27, 183194.
Int Panis, L., De Nocker, L., Cornelis, E., Torfs, R., 2004. An uncertainty analysis of air pollution externalities from road transport in Belgium in 2010. Sci. Total
Environ. 334335, 287298.
Int Panis, L., Rabl, A., De Nocker, L., Torfs, R., 2002. Diesel or petrol? An environmental comparison hampered by uncertainty, Mitteilungen Institut fr
Verbrennungskraftmaschinen und Thermodynamik, Publisher: Institut fr Verbrennungskraftmaschinen und Thermodynamik; Proceedings of 11th
International Symposium, Transport and Air Pollution, Austria, pp. 4854.
Ishihara, K., Nishimura, K., Uchiyama, Y., 1999. Lifecycle Analysis of Electric Vehicles with Advanced Batteries in Japan. Paper presented at Electric Vehicle
EV Symposium-16, Beijing, China.
Ji, S., Cherry, C.R., Bechle, M., Wu, Y., Marshall, J.D., 2012. Electric vehicles in China: emissions and health impacts. Environ. Sci. Tech. 46, 20182024.
38 J. Buekers et al. / Transportation Research Part D 33 (2014) 2638

Kendall, G., 2008. Plugged in the End of the Oil Age. WWF World Wide Fund for Nature. WWF European Policy Ofce, Brussels.
Keuken, M.P., Moerman, M., Voogt, M., Weijers, E.P., Rckmann, T., Dusek, U., 2013. Source contributions to PM2.5 and PM10 at an urban background and a
street location. Atmos. Environ. 71, 2635.
Lewis, H., Park, H., Paolini, M., 2012. Frontier battery development for hybrid vehicles. Chem. Cent. J. 6 (Suppl. 1), 2.
Maibach, M.C., Schreyer, C., Sutter, D., van Essen, H.P., Boon, B.H., Smokers, R., Schroten, A., Doll, C., Pawlowska, B., Bak, M., 2008. Handbook on the
Estimation of External Costs in the Transport Sector. Report Produced within the study Internalisation Measures and Policies for All external Cost of
Transport (IMPACT), Version 1.1, Commissioned by the European Commission DG TREN, Delft. http://ec.europa.eu/transport/themes/sustainable/doc/
2008_costs_handbook.pdf.
MIRA, 2011. Updating the External Costs of Environmental Damage in Relation to Air Pollution and Climate Change, VMM, Erembodegem, Belgium. http://
www.milieurapport.be/Upload/main/Externe%20kosten%20luchtverontreiniging_summary_TW.pdf.
Nijs, W., Lodewijks, P., Laes, E., 2011. Schadekosten van Huidige en Toekomstige Electriciteitsproductie in Vlaanderen. MIRA, VMM, Erembodegem, Belgium.
Notter, D.A., Gauch, M., Widmer, R., Wager, P., Stamp, A., Zah, R., Althaus, H.J., 2010. Contribution of Li-ion batteries to the environmental impact of electric
vehicles. Environ. Sci. Tech. 44, 65506556.
Pope, C.A., Burnett, R.T., Thurston, G.D., Thun, M.J., Calle, E.E., Krewski, D., Godleski, J.J., 2004. Cardiovascular mortality and long-term exposure to particulate
air pollution epidemiological evidence of general pathophysiological pathways of disease. Circulation 109, 7177.
Rabl, A., 2001. The importance of external costs for the competitiveness of renewable energies. Int. J. Global Energy Issues 15, 4958.
Riediker M., Gasser M., Perrenoud A., Gehr P., Rothen-Rutishauser B., 2008. A System to Test the Toxicity of Brake Wear Particles, 12th International ETH-
Conference on Combustion Generated Nanoparticles, Zurich, Switzerland.
Samaras, C., Meisterling, K., 2008. Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from plug-in hybrid vehicles: implications for policy. Environ. Sci. Tech.
42, 31703176.
Santos, G., Behrendt, H., Maconi, L., Shirvani, T., Teytelboym, A., 2010. Part I: externalities and economic policies in road transport. Res. Trans. E 28 (1), 245.
Seaton, A., Godden, D., MacNee, W., Donaldson, K., 1995. Particulate air pollution and acute health effects. Lancet 345, 176178.
Silva, C., Ross, M., Farias, T., 2009. Evaluation of energy consumption, emissions and cost of plug-in hybrid vehicles. Energy Convers. Manage. 50, 16351643.
Thiel, C., Perujo, A., Mercier, A., 2010. Cost and CO2 aspects of future vehicle options in Europe under new energy policy scenarios. Energy Policy 38 (11),
71427151.
US EPA, US Environmental Protection Agency, 2010. Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis. http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/regulations/scc-
tsd.pdf [Accessed, January 2014].
van Essen, H., Schroten, A., Otten, M., Sutter, D., Schreyer, C., Zandonella, R., Maibach, M., Doll, C., 2011. External Costs of Transport in Europe, CE Delft.
http://www.cedelft.eu/publicatie/external_costs_of_transport_in_europe/1258.
Van Vliet, O., Brouwer, A.S., Kuramochi, T., Van Den Broek, M., Faaij, A., 2011. Energy use, cost and CO2 emissions of electric cars. J. Power Sources 196 (4),
22982310.
WHO, World Health Organisation, 2005. Health Effects of Transport Related Air Pollution. WHO, Denmark. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_le/
0006/74715/E86650.pdf.

View publication stats