Energy 25 (2000) 777792 www.elsevier.

com/locate/energy

Energy and environmental costs for electric vehicles using CO2-neutral electricity in Sweden
Bengt Johansson
a

a,*

, Anders Martensson

Department of Environmental and Energy Systems Studies, Lund University, Gerdagatan 13, SE-223 62 Lund, Sweden b Environmental Technique and Management, IFM, Linkoping University, SE-581 83 Linkoping, Sweden Received 2 March 1999

Abstract Electric vehicles (EVs) may provide an alternative for CO2-neutral transportation services. This article analyses the cost of energy and emissions from using electricity produced from Swedish renewable energy sources in electric vehicles, and compares it with the cost of an alternative in which biomass-based methanol is used in internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). These costs do not include vehicle and battery costs. Cost estimates of electricity, calculated using a marginal cost perspective, include production costs as well as the cost of distribution and vehicle recharging. The energy cost per km for vehicles using electricity is calculated to be 3070% of the cost of biomass-based methanol, depending on the general level of electricity demand, the need for grid upgrading, and the assumed cost of biomass-based methanol. A high general electricity demand in society would require expensive condensing plants to supply the vehicles, whereas with a lower demand, cheaper cogeneration and wind power plants could be utilised. An electric vehicle, used as the average Swedish car, would, during its lifetime, have energy and environmental costs 30 00040 000 SEK ($40005400) lower than the current state-of-the art ICEVs using biomass-based methanol. An electric vehicle used mainly in the city centre might have energy and environmental costs which are 130 000140 000 SEK ($17 00019 000) lower than a current methanol-fuelled car. With future improvements in the energy efciency and environmental performance of ICEVs the difference will be signicantly reduced. If battery costs were included in the cost calculations, EVs would not be cost competitive with future ICEVs, even if battery costs are reduced to $100/kWh. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +46-46-222-9730; fax +46-46-222-8644. E-mail address: bengt.johansson@miljo.lth.se (B. Johansson).

0360-5442/00/$ - see front matter 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 3 6 0 - 5 4 4 2 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 1 3 - X

778

B. Johansson, A. Martensson / Energy 25 (2000) 777792

1. Introduction Mobile sources have become the most polluting sources in society and account for about 80% of the total nitrogen oxide (NOx) emission, 40% of the non-methane volatile organic compound emission (NMVOC) and 44% of the carbon dioxide (CO2) emission in Sweden [1,2]. Mobile sources are also important producers of particulate matter (PM) and the dominating contributors to noise. Electric vehicles (EVs) have been proposed as an option which could help solve these problems. The electricity for the vehicles could be supplied from the electricity grid or be produced onboard the vehicle by an internal combustion engine or a fuel cell. In this article vehicles using electricity supplied from the electricity grid will be considered. Renewable energy sources (mainly hydro) currently contribute about half of the Swedish electricity supply. There is great potential to increase the electricity supply through wind-power and biomass-based plants in Sweden, however, at somewhat higher costs than new fossil-fuel-based plants. With an economic valuation of CO2, fossil fuel prices will increase and the renewable sources will be more competitive. Currently a CO2 tax of approximately $180/tonne C is levied on Swedish heat production and on transportation fuels (1 US$=7.5 SEK). There is, however, no CO2 tax on fossil fuels used for electricity generation. In this article, the cost of electricity for EVs is estimated assuming that renewable energy sources are used. The emission associated with this form of electricity generation and the cost of this emission are also assessed. These aspects of fossil-free EVs are then compared with an alternative in which biomass-based methanol is used in internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). Studies have shown that methanol produced from cellulosic feedstocks is the biofuel that, under Swedish conditions, seems to have the highest potential for low costs in the mediumterm perspective [3].

2. Methodology In order to compare the cost of energy for electric vehicles with the cost of using other alternative vehicles, a marginal cost perspective on the electricity supply is adopted. The cost of the electricity for electric vehicles is estimated as the difference between the total cost of an electricity system where the electric vehicles studied are supplied with electricity and the cost of the same electricity system without the supply to the electric vehicles. As the cost of different electricity production technologies differs, and the potential for some low-cost options is restricted, the marginal cost for the introduction of electric vehicles will depend on the total electricity demand in society. Therefore, two different scenarios for future electricity demand have been dened, one assuming a low electricity demand (LD) and the other assuming a high demand (HD). The distribution cost will also depend on the number of electric vehicles introduced as a more extensive introduction may require new investments in the distribution system. Furthermore, there will be a cost associated with the vehicle charging system. Both distribution costs and cost of charging systems are included in the estimates of electricity costs.

B. Johansson, A. Martensson / Energy 25 (2000) 777792

779

The cost resulting from emission has been calculated using values in Table 1. These values are roughly the same as those used in ofcial transport infrastructure planning in Sweden. It is assumed that emissions from electricity production plants have the same environmental impact as vehicle emissions in rural areas. The cost of CO2 emissions was dened as the current Swedish carbon tax, 36 ore/kg CO2 ($0.18/kg C).1 Different sources have been used to estimate the average energy use and emissions of the vehicle types studied, see below. In reality, both energy use and emissions are generally higher for urban than rural trafc for ICEVs. There is, however, little information on such differences for vehicles using alternative fuels. In this study we assume the same relation between urban and rural energy use and emission levels for alcohol-fuelled vehicles, as has been estimated for petrolfuelled vehicles. Thus we assume that NOx emissions are 1.5 times higher, VOC emissions 4 times higher, particulate emissions 1.7 times higher, and energy use 1.5 times higher in urban trafc than rural trafc [79]. For EVs energy use, however, we expect the same value for both urban and rural trafc [10]. Two scenarios for vehicles using electricity from the grid are discussed. In one, 10% of the transportation service produced by light-duty vehicles is based on electricity from the grid, in the other 70%. (A substitution of CO2-neutral electricity for fossil fuels in these scenarios would result in CO2 emission reductions of 1.2 Gt CO2 and 8.8 Gt CO2, respectively, equivalent to
Table 1 Cost of the environmental impact of VOC, NOx and particulate emissions in Sweden based on [4] Cost of environmental damageaSEK/kg (US$/kg) VOC, petrol and diesel VOC, other fuelsc NOx Particulate matter
a b

Health effectsb Rural SEK/kg (US$/kg) 0 0 0 180 (24) Urban SEK/kg (US$/kg) 49 (6.5) 25 (3.3) 49 (6.5) 904 (120) City centre SEK/kg (US$/kg) 245 (33) 122 (16) 245 (33) 4520 (600)

17 (2.3) 8.5 (1.1) 40 (5.3) 0

Includes cost for acidication, eutrophication, damages to crops due to high ozone concentration. The values are estimates for Gothenburg, a city in Sweden with approximately 460,000 inhabitants. The cost per unit emission of local health effects in a smaller town, such as Falun (35,000 inhabitants) may be only one fourth of that in Gothenburg [5]. The cost of health damage was based on estimates of the value of reducing population doses. This value was obtained from surveys in which people were asked about their willingness to pay for dose reductions. The value of reducing population doses was then transformed into a value of reducing vehicle emissions, utilising different dispersion models, wind, climate and population data. The value of reducing the emissions was then used as the cost of the emission [4]. c [4] gives the cost of environmental damage for a specic amount of VOC from biogas/natural gas and alcohol as an interval from 0 to the same level as for petrol and diesel (VOC emissions from different fuels consist of different compounds which are not equally harmful). In this study, 1 kg of VOC from methanol is valued at 50% of 1 kg of VOC from petrol and diesel.

The estimation of damage costs for CO2 is very sensitive to different assumptions, such as interest rate, see e.g. [6]. In this study we assume that the valuation, by the society, of CO2 damage is reected in the carbon dioxide tax.

780

B. Johansson, A. Martensson / Energy 25 (2000) 777792

Table 2 Specic electricity demand from the grid for electric vehiclesa Grid-Electricity demand kWh/km Passenger cars Light-duty trucks/buses 0.15 kWh/km 0.30 kWh/km Maximum power-demand slow night recharging 3.8 kW 7.6 kW Maximum power-demand, fast recharging 50 kW 75 kW

a The maximum power enables charging from 0100% in 8 hours by slow charging. The maximum power demand in fast recharging enables full charging in 30 min1 h. Electricity demand for passenger cars is based on [13,14]. Light duty trucks and buses are assumed to consume double the amount passenger cars consume per kilometre.

approximately 2% and 14% of the total Swedish CO2 emission). We have not taken account for the realism in these scenarios, and a 70% use of electric vehicles would certainly require major breakthroughs in technology. We believe, however, that it is interesting to study the consequences of such a high penetration of electric vehicles to see whether this would have any major impact on the electricity system. We assume that 80% of the vehicle charging takes place through slow charging during the night, and 20% in fast recharging systems during daytime. The vehicles are assumed to have a driving range of 200 km with average daily driving distances for both passenger cars and light duty trucks of 40 km. (Estimated from [11,12]) All costs are given in SEK 1997 (1 Swedish crown (SEK)=100 ore) and US$ 1997 where 1 US$=7.5 SEK. Energy costs are costs excluding taxes. 3. Electricity demand for electric vehicles The assumed annual electricity demand and assumed power requirements for the EVs in the scenarios are given in Table 2. The total energy demand and power requirements in the different scenarios are given in Table 3.
Table 3 Annual demand for grid electricity for electric vehicles and power demand for the charging of the vehicles. The loss in the electricity grid is assumed to be 7% Fraction of light-duty transportation service (vehicle-kilometre travelled) based on grid electricity Grid-Electricity demand Slow night-time charging 10 pm6 am MWb 300 MW 2100 MW Average power demand Daytime charging 6 am10 pm MWb 40 MW 280 MW Power demand during high-demand daytime periods MWb 100 MW 670 MW

TWh/yra 10% 70% 1.1 7.5

a Total annual driving distances are assumed to be 60 000 million kilometres for passenger cars and 3000 million kilometres for light-duty buses and trucks. b 80% of the electricity is loaded during the night-time and 20% during the day. 80% of the daytime electricity is charged between 11 am1 pm and 4 pm7 pm. It is assumed that there is a system enabling a constant night-time load during the 8 hours between 10 pm and 6 am, cf. [15]).

B. Johansson, A. Martensson / Energy 25 (2000) 777792

781

The required power levels can be compared with the installed capacity in Swedish power plants which amounts to about 34 GW, of which 16 GW is derived from hydro power plants and 10 GW from nuclear power plants [16]. The average power demand during the summer is about 11 15 GW and approximately 20 GW during the coldest winter months [16]. The 2 GW needed during the night in the case where 70% of the light duty transportation service is based on electricity, is less than the difference between the minimum and maximum load both in the summer and the winter, Fig. 1. The introduction of electric vehicles might thus reduce the uctuation in electricity demand, although a signicant degree of fast recharging during the day will coincide with high power demand in the system. However, even if as much as 60% were charged during day-time and 80% of this is in highdemand daytime periods the power demand would not exceed 2 GW. This can be compared to the current power demand for electric heating of buildings which in Sweden is at least four times larger than this amount [16,17]. The current trend is to restrict this type of electrcity use which will make room for the demand of EV charging. 4. Electricity production and distribution The Swedish electricity production and import in 1997 is shown in Fig. 2. The Swedish electricity production in 1997 was approximately 145 TWh, with hydro-power providing approximately 68 TWh and nuclear power 67 TWh [16]. 6% of the electricity supply was produced in cogeneration plants. 1997 was a wet year, and the average production in Swedish hydro-power

Fig. 1.

Power system load during one winter and one summer day in Sweden 1997 [18].

782

B. Johansson, A. Martensson / Energy 25 (2000) 777792

Fig. 2.

Swedish electricity production and import in 1997 [16].

plants is approximately 63 TWh/yr. The volume of water that could be stored if the annual reservoirs were utilised to the full, was the equivalent of 33.6 TWh of energy at the end of 1997 [16]. The electricity demand was approximately 142 TWh including distribution losses, etc. The electricity imported corresponded to approximately 10 TWh and the electricity exported 13 TWh. Importation is highest during the winter, while electricity export is greatest during spring and summer [19]. An electricity system based on renewable energy sources only will, to a large extent, be based on hydro-power, although the potential of expanding the utilisation of this resource is restricted by environmental laws. In this article we assume that hydro-power will, on average, produce 66 TWh/yr in all the scenarios. Further expansion of hydro power is assumed to be restricted due to environmental considerations. The other major potential renewable sources of electricity considered in this study are biomass and wind power. Direct solar electricity is not assumed to be a viable option for electricity production in Sweden due to too high investment cost, low solar insolation and unsuitable temporal distribution of solar energy insolation in relation to electricity demand. Biomass electricity can be produced at relatively low costs and high efciencies in cogeneration plants. The potential for cogenerated electricity is, however, restricted by the availability of heat sinks. In this article, we assume that the production of cogenerated electricity can be 20 TWh/yr in district heating plants [20] and 10 TWh/yr in industry.2
2 Estimates by Vattenfall AB [21] indicate that electricity production in industry could increase by 5.2 TWh/yr. Today, the potential for industrial electricity production is more than 5 TWh/yr. Also the Ecocycle commission [22] assumes that 910 TWh/yr could be produced from black liquors in the paper and pulp industry alone.

B. Johansson, A. Martensson / Energy 25 (2000) 777792

783

The wind power potential is restricted by wind availability and land-use conicts. The technical potential for on-shore wind power in Sweden has been estimated to be around 75 TWh/yr, but with restrictions due to land-use conicts the potential becomes 37 TWh/yr. The off-shore potential has been estimated to be 20 TWh/yr [23]. Restrictions on wind power might, however, change in the future. In this article we assume that wind power can produce 7 TWh/yr on-shore and 20 TWh/yr off-shore. If biomass cogeneration and wind power do not satisfy the electricity demand we assume that biomass-based electricity is produced in condensing plants. Gas turbines, using fossil fuels, are assumed to be used as quick-response regulative power to the same degree as today. These gas turbines, although essential to the functioning of the electricity system, contribute less than 0.1% to the total Swedish CO2 emissions and 1% to CO2 emissions from electricity production [2]. Production costs for different technologies are given in Table 4. For wind there will be some system integration costs above these costs. A major Swedish study in the mid-1980s made by the largest utility Vattenfall [24] estimated that the average integration cost of 10 TWh/yr would be approximately 8 ore/kWh (1.1/kWh) and for an integration of 30 TWh/yr 16 ore/kWh (2.2/kWh). The marginal integration costs were estimated to be 10 and 30 ore/kWh respectively (1.3 and 3.9/kWh).3 Nilsson [25] estimated integration costs of less than one quarter of these
Table 4 Production cost of electricity for different electricity supply technologies. Based on [20,27] Cost of electricity production ore/kWh (/kWh) Cogeneration (biomass) Condensing plants (biomass) Wind power (on-shore)c Today 2005 2020 Wind-power (off-shore) c Today 2005 2020
a

Potential TWh/yr 30 20b

4045(5.36.0)a 5560 (7.38.0) 3740 (4.95.3) 3035 (4.04.7) 2125 (2.83.3)

20 51 (6.8) 3237 (4.34.9) 2529 (3.33.9)

These costs are higher than the estimated cost for new Swedish cogeneration plants (3040 ore/kWh) given in the Ofcial Report of the Swedish Government [28]. This is because we have assumed a high value of electricity which enables investments in IGCC-technology (Integrated Gasier Combined Cycles technology), with high investment costs, instead of steam turbines. This would create a system with a lower total cost as the potential for cogeneration is doubled, resulting in a reduced demand for more costly condensing plants. b The potential is restricted by the availability of biomass and several estimates indicate that annual biomass use could increase by 125 TWh/yr (see e.g. [29]). This may allow an electricity production of more than 20 TWh/yr in condensing plants if the use of biomass for heat and electricity production is given high priority. c Based on [27]. The interval indicates more or less optimistic assumptions of the development of new wind power technology.

The original values have been recalculated to 1997 price level.

784

B. Johansson, A. Martensson / Energy 25 (2000) 777792

levels. According also to Soder [26] the values given by Vattenfall may be too high, partly because the calculations were performed assuming a national electricity system. This assumption is now inappropriate since the Scandinavian countries today have a common electricity market. Soder estimates that the cost of integration of 10 TWh/yr would probably be very low. The future demand for electricity will depend on among other things the economic development and the level of energy efciency. Furthermore, in Sweden one third of all electricity is used for space heating. This is a consequence of historically low electricity prices. In a system based solely on renewable energy sources, electricity prices can be expected to rise, which would result in reductions in electricity use for space heating. In this study, we assume two scenarios for electricity demand (excluding electricity for road vehicles), see Table 5. In Table 5 we also show how different renewable energy sources can be used to support this electricity demand. In the low electricity demand scenario there is no need for more costly condensing plants, while in the high demand scenario condensing plants must be used. In both scenarios, it is reasonable to use the cost of the biomass-based alternative (cogeneration or condensing plants) as the marginal cost. Up to at least 10 TWh/yr wind electricity could probably be produced at the same or a lower cost than cogenerated electricity and perhaps 30 TWh/yr at the same or lower cost than condensing plants. If only cost were regarded one might expect somewhat higher fractions of wind power than that shown in Table 5. There may, however, be location problems which would make biomass-based electricity a more viable option than wind power, even if a cost analysis suggests otherwise. Thus, in the low electricity demand scenario where the supply to electric vehicles can be based on cogeneration and wind power we assume a marginal production cost of approximately 40 ore/kWh (5.3/kWh). In the scenario with high electricity demand the marginal electricity pro duction must be based on biomass-based condensing plants and we estimate a marginal production cost of 57 ore/kWh (7.6/kWh). Since the Swedish electric grid is connected to the grids of other countries, electricity could
Table 5 Electricity demand and possible supply in two different scenarios. No electricity for road vehicles are included in these values Low electricity demand TWh/yra Electricity demand Possible electricity supply Hydro-power Industrial cogeneration Cogeneration in district heating systems On-shore wind power Off-shore wind power Biomass-based condensing plants 96 66 10 15 2 3 0 High electricity demand TWh/yra 140 66 10 20 7 20 17

a Energy use in the scenario low electricity demand corresponds to the high efciency case in [30]. The highelectricity demand scenario corresponds to the reference scenario. These energy demands can be compared with estimates in [31] where the electricity use was about 135 TWh/yr in a reference scenario and 114 TWh/yr in an efciency scenario.

B. Johansson, A. Martensson / Energy 25 (2000) 777792

785

be imported and exported. There is, however, no reason to believe that the production costs for new biomass-based electricity and wind power will differ signicantly between Sweden and its neighbouring countries. The marginal cost interval (4057 ore/kWh) calculated for Swedish con ditions therefore seems to be reasonably accurate also for an electric system which allows import and export of electricity produced from renewable energy sources. The distribution cost consists of losses, operation and maintenance (O&M) costs and investment costs. If no new investments are necessary the distribution cost may be relatively low (only O& M costs and the cost of distribution losses which give a cost of about 10 ore/kWh (1.3/kWh). The losses are assumed to be 7%). If new investments are necessary, the distribution cost of electricity to electric vehicles could be as high as 30 ore/kWh (4/kWh).4 In the low demand scenario, the electricity consumption is assumed to be signicantly lower than that today, and it is therefore reasonable to believe that there will be only minor requirements for investments in the distribution network, especially in areas where there are many electrically heated buildings. Some investment might however be required in areas of multi-family buildings and areas where electric heating is not utilised. In the high demand scenario, the electricity network might have to be upgraded to a greater extent than in the low demand case. Finally there are costs involved for the equipment required for vehicle charging. These costs may vary greatly depending on local conditions. As fast-charging systems have not yet been built in any great number, there should thus be potential for cost reductions in these systems. We have assumed a charging cost of 7 ore/kWh (0.93/kWh) as an average for the slow and fast charging systems. This value can be compared with estimated values for current technologies in Table 6. 5. Cost of electricity for electric vehicles The estimated cost of the electricity supply for electric vehicles in the scenarios varies between 58 and 95 ore/kWh (7.7 and 13/kWh), Table 7. The gures indicate that the need for new investments in distribution is as important for the cost as the production option utilised.
Table 6 Cost of charging equipment Power kW Investment costsa SEK/kW (US$/kW) 250500 (3366) 20008000 (2701070) Costs/energyb ore/kWh (/kWh) 49 (0.51.2) 417 (0.52.3)

Slow charging Fast charging

a

4 50

Based on information from Brannstrom [33]. The values are for existing technologies. For fast charging the lower value is for eet charging, the higher is for public charging including a payment system. b Calculated by annualising the investment costs using a 6% real interest rate with an estimated economic lifetime of 20 years. The slow charger is assumed to deliver on average 6 kWh/day. The fast charger is assumed to deliver approximately 525 kWh/day (fully utilised during 5 h, utilised to 50% during 11 h).
4 We have arrived at these values using two different methods. One is based on a method of estimating cost-based distribution prices [32], the other method employs tariffs from a group of Swedish distribution companies (Borgholms Energi, Jamtkraft and Norrkoping Energi).

786

B. Johansson, A. Martensson / Energy 25 (2000) 777792

Table 7 Estimted costs of electricity for electric vehicles. All costs are for electricity from renewable energy sources Distribution scenario No new distribution High electricity demand ore/kWh (/kWh) 57 (7.6) 12 (1.6) 7 (0.9) 76 (10) New distribution Low electricity demand ore/kWh (/kWh) 40 (5.3) 30 (4.0) 7 (0.9) 77(10) High electricity demand ore/kWh (/kWh) 57 (7.6) 31 (4.1) 7 (0.9) 95 (13)

Electricity demand scenarios Low electricity demand ore/kWh (/kWh) Production costs Distribution costsa Charging costs Total costs
a

40 (5.3) 11 (1.5) 7 (0.9) 58 (7.7)

Investment and O&M costs for distribution are based on [32].

For the passenger car this electricity cost is equivalent to 0.91.4 SEK/10 km ($0.120.19/ 10km), Table 8. This amount is approximately equivalent to 3070% of the energy cost for a vehicle using biomass-based methanol.

6. Emissions The fuel-cycle emissions, from fuel extraction, transport, conversion and end-use, of CO2, NOx, VOC and particulate matter from electric vehicles are compared with the emissions from a meth-

Table 8 Energy cost when using electricity and biomass-based methanol in passenger carsa Electricity in EVsb Electricity demand scenarios No new distribution New distribution SEK/10 km SEK/10 km ($/10 km) ($/10 km) Biomass-based methanol in ICEVsc Current fuel consumption SEK/10 km ($/10 km) 2.503.20 (0.330.43) See above Future fuel consumption SEK/10 km ($/10 km) 1.922.47 (0.260.33) See above

Low demand High demand

a

0.87 (0.10) 1.14 (0.15)

1.16 (0.15) 1.42 (0.19)

The EVs and ICEVs are assumed to have the same size and performance with the exception that the driving range for the EV is restricted to 200 km. b The electric vehicle is assumed to use 0.15 kWh/km, see Table 2. The electricity cost is taken from Table 7. c The methanol fuelled car is assumed to use 0.6 kWh/km in 1996 and 0.47 kWh/km in 2010 (approximately 0.7 l and 0.54 l petrol-equivalent/10 km respectively [34]) and the methanol cost is assumed to be 4153 ore/kWh. The cost estimates are projected production costs for methanol production from cellulosic biomass using thermal gasication technology [3].

B. Johansson, A. Martensson / Energy 25 (2000) 777792

787

Table 9 Assumed fuel-cycle emissions from electric vehicles and methanol-fuelled vehicles. Based on [3537] and vehicle energy end-uses according to Table 8. End-use emissions are given in parentheses NOx g/10 km Electric vehicle (Low demand) b Electric vehicle (High demand) Methanol-fuelled vehicle 1996 Estimated methanol-fuelled vehicle 2010c
a

VOC g/10km 0.015 (0) 0.05 (0) 8.4 (8.2) 0.4 (0.3)

Particulates g/10km 0.03 (0) 0.1 (0) 0.02 (0) 0.015 (0)

CO2a g/10km 13 (0) 40 (0) 180 (0) 140 (0)

0.34 (0) 1.2 (0) 1.9 (0.7) 0.7 (0.1)

Net end-use CO2 emissions from biomass is assumed to be zero as the same amount of CO2 that is released during combustion, is assumed to have been sequestered from the atmosphere during biomass growth. b Estimated values assuming 50% wind power and 50% biomass-based cogeneration as marginal electricity. c Pre-combustion emissions of NOx are assumed to be reduced by 50% between 1996 and 2010 as a result of a replacement of the diesel vehicles used for biomass production and transport with new vehicles with lower emissions.

anol-fuelled vehicle, Table 9. Both 1996 emissions for methanol-fuelled vehicles and estimated 2010 emissions are included in the table. The emission values are estimated average real-trafc emissions over the vehicle life-time. This means, for example, that degradation of emission performance is accounted for. Although we are assuming CO2 neutral transportation systems, we assume that some fossil fuels will be used to produce the electricity and the biomass-based transportation fuels. Compared with the methanol-fuelled vehicle, life-cycle emissions for the electric vehicle are much lower for all compounds except particulate matter. With the development of less-polluting vehicles the differences will be reduced. Estimated costs of emissions from vehicles in different trafc situations are given in Table 10. The cost differences between electric vehicles and alcohol-fuelled vehicles are especially high in city centres, although the difference will be reduced by better technologies for alcohol-fuelled vehicles.

Table 10 Environmental costs for different vehicles with different fractions of rural and city emissionsa 70% rural 30% urban ore/10 km (/10 km) Electric car (low demand) Electric car (high demand) Methanol car 1996 emissions Methanol car 2015 emissions
a

30% rural 70% urban ore/10 km (/10 km) 2.4 (0.32) 8.1 (1.1) 59 (7.9) 10 (1.4)

100% city centre ore/10 km (/10 km) 2.4 (0.32) 8.1 (1.1) 250 (33) 19 (2.5)

2.4 (0.32) 8.1 (1.1) 42 (5.6) 9.4 (1.3)

The calculation is based on emission factors in Table 9, environmental cost estimates in Table 1 and assumed relations between emissions for urban and rural transport described in the method section. Emissions from fuel extraction, transport and conversion are given the same economic valuation as is assumed for rural emissions.

788

B. Johansson, A. Martensson / Energy 25 (2000) 777792

7. Total costs The total cost of energy and emissions for the different vehicle types is summarised in Fig. 3. For vehicles used mainly in rural areas the cost of emissions is of little importance for all vehicle alternatives. An electric vehicle used as the average Swedish car (about 70% in rural areas) would, during its life-time, have energy and environmental costs 30 00040 000 SEK ($40005400) lower than current state-of-the art ICEVs using biomass-based methanol. An electric vehicle used mainly in the city centre might have energy and environmental costs which are 130 000140 000 SEK ($17 00019 000) lower than a methanol-fuelled car. Such a level would probably sufce to make electric vehicles competitive with alcohol-fuelled vehicles. In this case, the cost of emission is high for the methanol-fuelled vehicle. If the promised improvements in ICEVs are fullled the cost difference in city centres will be reduced to 30 00040 000 SEK ($40005400).

8. Discussion The results of this study give an indication of how much extra an EV can cost during its lifetime to be able to compete with ICEVs using methanol from biomass. It is clear that EVs mainly used in city centres have a much better potential to compete with ICEVs than an EV used mostly in rural areas. If emission from ICEVs continue to decrease the differences between the different trafc situations will be reduced. There are still substantial uncertainties in future energy use and

Fig. 3. Cost of energy and emissions for different vehicle types per kilometre and during their whole life-times. The electricity cost for EVs in the scenario Low electricity demand (LD) is taken to be 55 ore/kWh and in the scenario with high demand (HD) 95 ore/kWh, compare Table 7. For methanol the median of the cost interval in Table 8 is used.

B. Johansson, A. Martensson / Energy 25 (2000) 777792

789

emission levels for different alternative vehicles and the calculations cannot give any nal answer regarding the value of the energy and environmental advantages of electric vehicles. Furthermore, it is still an open question as to whether the difference in cost between an EV (including batteries during its lifetime) and a comparable ICEV can be reduced to the low levels necessary to make electric vehicles competitive. To give some idea, we can use a common assumption5 that EVs and ICEVs in the future will cost about the same when battery costs are excluded. The USABC (US Advanced Battery Consortium) long-term targets for batteries are a cost of less than 100 US$/kWh6 and battery life-times of 1000 cycles at 80% of DoD (depth of discharge) [40]. For our vehicle with a storage capacity of about 30 kWh, a battery cost of 100 US$/kWh would correspond to a battery cost per driving distance of approximately 0.28 SEK/km (37/10 km), assuming that the battery pack would be changed once during the vehicle lifetime. The difference in energy and environmental costs between EVs and ICEVS shown in Fig. 3 are not large enough to make the EV cost competitive with future ICEVs at a battery cost of $100/kWh. Though the calculations indicate a reduction in the cost of emissions due to improved technology, there may be counteracting processes if people were to increase the value they place on a clean environment as a result of new scientic knowledge, greater public awareness and greater resources to spend on environmental goods. This study has indicated that there may be a signicant cost associated with a need for power grid upgrading. It is outside the scope of this study to assess this issue in more detail but it would be interesting to perform local case-studies to investigate the need for grid upgrading in scenarios where EVs have come into wide use. More thorough modelling of the future electricity production system would also be interesting. In this study, we use current biomass cost in the calculations of the cost of methanol and electricity production. When a CO2-neutral energy system is required, the increased demand for renewable energy sources would probably lead to an increase in biomass prices due to the scarcity of the resource. This would promote the most energy-efcient systems, in this study EVs. For example, if we assume biomass prices would be double the current level, the driving cost for the EVs studied would increase by only 0.20.4 SEK/10 km compared with 0.71.1 SEK/10 km for the alcohol-fuelled ICEVs. This study is different from other similar studies dealing with EV emission and cost, as the focus in our study is on electricity from renewable energy with a system approach. The purpose is to compare technologies for carbon neutral transportation services under comparable conditions. There are other studies, e.g. [14,42], that analyse the effect on the electricity system of an increased use of electric vehicles. Those studies differ from ours, however, as they analyse the effect of EVs on the existing electricty system, whereas focus in our study is on future systems with new options for electricity production. There are also several studies, see e.g. [3,4348] that compare life-cycle emissions and cost for different vehicles. The electricity supply to the EVs are in most of these studies either based on the current average supply mix of the studied region

PNGV [38] estimates the cost for an internal combustion engine to $30/kW and for an electric engine+electronics to $27/kW. Except for this and the batteries the two vehicle types should be rather similar. DeLuchi et al. [39] also assumed that the cost for electric vehicles excluding batteries and the cost for conventional vehicles should be almost the same. 6 Current battery costs for advanced batteries are $200250/kWh [41].

790

B. Johansson, A. Martensson / Energy 25 (2000) 777792

or electricty from certain dened technologies such as biomass or natural gas fuelled power plants. Furthermore most studies compare EVs with fossil-fuelled vehicles, see e.g. [43,48].

9. Conclusions This study has shown that the cost of CO2-neutral electricity for EVs would be 3070% of the cost of biomass-based methanol for ICEVs, calculated as the cost per kilometre. Depending on the general level of electricity demand in society and the need for grid upgrading, electricity costs for the vehicles in such a system may vary between 58 and 95 ore/kWh (6.8 and 12.5/kWh). The demand for grid upgrading may lead to cost increases as large as the demand for more expensive electricity supply. An electric vehicle, used in the same way as the average Swedish car, would, during its life-time, have energy and environmental costs 30 00040000 SEK ($4000 5400) lower than the current state-of-the-art ICEVs using biomass-based methanol. An electric vehicle used mainly in the city centre might have fuel and environmental costs which are 130 000 140 000 SEK ($17 00019 000) lower than methanol-fuelled cars. With future improvements in the energy efciency and environmental performance of ICEVs the difference will be signicantly reduced.

Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge the economic support provided by the Swedish Transport and Communications Research Board.

References
[1] Statistics Sweden. The Natural Environment in Figures, 5th ed. Stockholm, Sweden, 1996. [2] Statistics Sweden. Emissions to air in SwedenSulphur Dioxide, Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous Oxide and Carbon Monoxide in 1996. Stockholm, Sweden, 1997. [3] Johansson B. Transportation fuels from Swedish biomassenvironmental and cost aspects. Transpn Res D 1996;1(1):4762. [4] Johansson O. Kan minskade halso- och naturskadekostnader motivera en satsning pa biodrivmedel?. Stockholm, Sweden: The Swedish Transport and Communications Research Board, 1997. [5] Swedish Institute for Transportation and Communications Analysis. Oversyn av samhallsekonomiska kalkylvarden for den nationella trakplaneringen 19941998. Stockholm, Sweden, 1996. [6] Azar C, Sterner T. Discounting and distributional considerations in the context of global warming. Ecological Economics 1996;19:16985. [7] Hammarstrom U. Trak- och avgasutslapp- en utblick mot 2015. Emissions- och branslefaktorer for vagtrak. Linkoping, Sweden: Swedish Road and Transport Research Institute, 1990. [8] Solvang Jenssen S. Kremnstre og luftforureningi provinsen. VDL-report 105. Herlev, Danmark: Vejdatalaboratoriet, 1992. [9] Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Vad blir konsekvenserna for miljo och halsa av en okad andel dieselbi lar i den svenska bilparken?. Stockholm, Sweden, 1998.

B. Johansson, A. Martensson / Energy 25 (2000) 777792

791

[10] Martin D, Michaelis L. The environmental impact of electric vehicles. In: The Urban Electric VehiclePolicy Options, Technology Trends and Market Prospects. Paris: OECD. 1992. pp. 159-170. [11] Swedish Board of Transport. Kvartalsstatistik for transportsektorn. Stockholm, Sweden, 1990. [12] Henriksson P. Arliga korstrackor skattade ur bilprovningens databas. Linkoping, Sweden: Swedish Road and Transport Research Institute 1994. [13] DeLuchi MA, Ogden JM. Solar hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles. Transpn Res A 1993;27A(3):25575. [14] Koyanagi F, Uriu Y. Modelling power consumption by electric vehicles and its impact on power demand. Electric Engineering in Japan 1997;120(4):407. [15] Kempton W, Letendre SE. Electric vehicles as a new power source for electric utilities. Transpn Res D 1997;2(3):15775. [16] Swedish Power Association. Annual Report 1997. Stockholm, Sweden, 1998. [17] Swedish National Energy Administration. Avveckling av tva reaktorer. Report 1988:5. Stockholm, Sweden: Allmanna Forlaget, 1988. [18] Nordel. Arsberattelse 1997. Helsinki, Finland: Nordel secretariat, Imatran Voima Oy, 1998. [19] Swedish National Energy Administration. Energy in Sweden. Facts and Figures 1997. Eskilstuna, Sweden, 1998. [20] Gustavsson L, Johansson B. Cogenerationone way to use biomass efciently. Heat Recovery Systems and CHP 1994;14(2):11727. [21] Vattenfall AB. Potential for produktion av varme och el med biobransle. Bilaga till Slutbetankadet av biobranslek ommissionen, SOU 1992:91. Stockholm, Sweden: Allmanna Forlaget, 1992. [22] Ecocycle commission. Biomassaen nyckelresurs. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Ministry of the Environment, 1998. [23] Ofcial Report of the Swedish Government. Lage for vindkraft. Stockholm, Sweden: Allmanna Forlaget, 1988. [24] Vattenfall. Vindenergi i kraftsystemet: slutrapport hosten 1984. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish National Energy Administration, 1986. [25] Nilsson L. 1993. On wind power in the Nordic countries. In: Nilsson L. Energy Systems in Transition. An Analysis of Technology, Economy, and Policy Aspects. Doctoral Dissertation. Lund, Sweden: Department of Environmental and Energy Systems Studies, Lund University, 1993. [26] Soder L. Personal Communication November 17th, 1998. Stockholm, Sweden: Royal Institute of Technology, 1998. [27] Danish Energy Agency. Teknologidata for vedvarende energianlg. Kbenhavn, Denmark, 1995. [28] Ofcial Report of the Swedish Government. Omstallning av energisystemet. Stockholm, Sweden: Fritzes, 1995. [29] Gustavsson L, Borjesson P, Johansson B, Svenningsson P. Reducing CO2 emissions by substituting biomass for fossil fuels. Energythe International Journal 1995;20(11):1097113. [30] Bodlund B, Mills E, Karlsson T, Johansson TB. The challenges of choices: technology options for the Swedish electricity sector. In: Johansson TB, Bodlund B, Williams RH, editors. Electricity: Efcient End-use and New Generation Technologies and their Planning Implications. Lund, Sweden: Lund University Press, 1989:883947. [31] Swedish National Board for Industrial and Technical Development. Framtida elanvandningeffektiviseringspoten tialer. Support material to the Energy Commission, Stockholm, Sweden, 1995. [32] Collstrand F. Kostnadsrelaterad modell for transiteringstaxor i eldistributionsnat. Lund, Sweden: Department of Industrial Electrical Engineering and Automation, Lund Institute of Technology, 1994. [33] Brannstrom P. Personal Communication 1998-11-20. Malmo, Sweden: Sycon AB, 1998. [34] Johansson B. The economy of alternative fuels when including the cost of air pollution. Transpn Res D 1999;4:91108. [35] Brannstrom-Norberg B-M, Dethlefsen U, Johansson R, Setterwall C, Tunbrant S. Livscykelanalys for elproduktion. Sammanfattande rapport. Stockholm, Sweden, Vattenfall AB, 1996. [36] Blinge M, Arnas P-O, Backstrom S, Furnander A, Hovelius K. Livscykelanalys (LCA) av drivmedel. Stockholm, Sweden: The Swedish Transport and Communications Research Board, 1997. [37] Egeback K-E, Ahlvik P, Westerholm R. Emissionsfaktorer for fordon drivna med fossila respektive alternativa branslen. Stockholm, Sweden: The Swedish Transport and Communications Research Board, 1997. [38] National Research Council. Review of the partnership for a new generation vehicles. Fourth report, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998.

792

B. Johansson, A. Martensson / Energy 25 (2000) 777792

[39] DeLuchi MA, Wang Q, Sperling D. Electric vehicles: performance, life-cycle costs, emissions and recharging requirements. Transpn Res A 1989;23A:25578. [40] National Research Council. Effectiveness of the United States Advanced Battery Consortium as a Government Industry Partnership, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1998. [41] Rand DAJ, Woods R, Dell RM. Batteries for Electric Vehicles. Taunton, England: Research Studies Press, 1998. [42] Ford A. The impacts of large scale use of electric vehicles in southern California. Energy and Buildings 1995;22:20718. [43] IEA. Electric vehicles: Technology, performance and potential. Paris, OECD, 1993. [44] Wang Q, De Luchi MA. Impacts of electric vehicles on primary energy consumption and petroleum displacement. Energythe International Journal 1992;17(4):35166. [45] Burkner W, Schaefer H. Elektro-Strassenfahrzeugeeine Technik fur umweltschonende Mobilitat. Energiwirtsch aftliche Tagesfragen 1992;42(6):3749. [46] Goubeau A, Heuser R, Metz N, Nierhauve B, Sporckmann B. Energieverbrauch und Emissionen zukunftiger Pkw Antriebe. Ein Vergleich fur das Jahr 2000. Energiwirtschaftliche Tagesfragen 1996;46(12):798804. [47] Kazimi C. Evaluating the environmental impact of alternative-fuel vehicles. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 1997;33:16385. [48] Metz N. Comparison of the Energy Consumption and Emissions of Future Drive Trains for Passenger Cars at the year 2000. EVS-14 Proceedings 1997.