Cost-effectiveness of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle battery capacity and charging infrastructure investment for reducing US gasoline consumption
Cost-effectiveness of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle battery capacity and charging infrastructure investment for reducing US gasoline consumption
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.enpol.2012.09.059
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
9
通讯作者：
S. B. Peterson;Jeremy J. Michalek
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. B. Peterson;Jeremy J. Michalek
美国联邦电动汽车（EV）政策目前包括与电动汽车电池容量挂钩的购车补贴和安装充电站补贴。我们评估了增加电池容量与安装插电式混合动力电动汽车非国内充电基础设施的成本效益，作为减少美国轿车、卡车和 SUV 汽油消耗的替代方法。我们发现，在各种情况下，成本最低的解决方案是让更多的驾驶员改用低容量插电式混合动力电动汽车（短距离电动行驶，并为长途旅行配备汽油备用）或汽油动力混合动力电动汽车。如果每辆车需要节省更多汽油，那么安装非家用充电基础设施的成本要比每节省一加仑增加电池容量要贵得多，而且这两种方法的成本都高于美国石油溢价的估计。在具有约束力的燃油经济性标准下，所有补贴的成本效益都较低。结果与当前联邦补贴结构的比较表明，政策与燃油节省潜力不一致，我们讨论了问题和替代方案。
Federal electric vehicle (EV) policies in the United States currently include vehicle purchase subsidies linked to EV battery capacity and subsidies for installing charging stations. We assess the cost-effectiveness of increased battery capacity vs. nondomestic charging infrastructure installation for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles as alternate methods to reduce gasoline consumption for cars, trucks, and SUVs in the US. We find across a wide range of scenarios that the least-cost solution is for more drivers to switch to low-capacity plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (short electric range with gasoline backup for long trips) or gasoline-powered hybrid electric vehicles. If more gasoline savings are needed per vehicle, nondomestic charging infrastructure installation is substantially more expensive than increased battery capacity per gallon saved, and both approaches have higher costs than US oil premium estimates. Cost effectiveness of all subsidies are lower under a binding fuel economy standard. Comparison of results to the structure of current federal subsidies shows that policy is not aligned with fuel savings potential, and we discuss issues and alternatives.