Having a mixed fleet of vehicles, governments
and municipalities can arrange the charging and hydrogen production timing
using smart meters and incentives/disincentives charging time in a way that
minimum peak electricity generation capacity and electricity grid upgrade is needed.
Complementary in transition to emission-free
transportation: Although PHEVs
are more polluting than BEVs and FCVs, they
are a cleaner technology compared to ICEVs. However, PHEVs are still an
attractive alternative for ICE vehicles for reducing GHG emissions if fueled by
This means that by incentivizing PHEVs, GHG emissions
can be reduced continuously while the
needed time for the diffusion of charging and refueling stations for BEVs and
FCVs and the further development of technologies
used in BEVs and FCV is provided. As BEVs
need less extensive charging infrastructure and can even be charged at homes, they can have a
significant role in emission reduction short-term and medium-term while with the increase in the number of HRSs, FCVs can contribute to
emission reduction in the longer-term time frames.
Complementary in vehicle size: If we consider the TCO (which includes both
upfront costs, fuel cost, and maintenance cost), PHEVs are more cost-efficient
that BEVs and FCVs in the short term 6. By 2025,
all types of electric vehicles are competitors with ICEVs. It is also predicted that by 2030, PHEVs and BEVs
are competitive for small cars, BEVs and FCVs are competitive for medium cars
and FCVs will have an advantage for large cars. The TCO of FCVs is also
predicted to be significantly lower than ICEVs by 2050. However, all
technologies will have competitive TCO by 2050 for medium cars. BEVs will keep
their advantage over FCVs for small cars in 2050 6.
So it can be concluded that BEV technology is more suitable for
smaller-size cars and short trips (urban driving) due to their charging time
and energy storage capacity (driving range) 6. FCVs can provide options for longer trips
and can also be used for medium/larger cars as they have short refueling time
and have higher range compared to BEVs 6.
This means that a scenario in which small ICEVs are replaced with BEVs and medium and large ICEVs
are replaced with FCVs is more
cost-efficient than a situation of all ICEV being
replaced with the same technology (either it is BEV or FCV).
Deployment of EVs is more appealing in early stages.
People can install chargers at home at a price of about USD 1200 and also the development of public charging stations is much
less expensive than a hydrogen refueling station (although a charging station
supports fewer cars than a HRS). However,
in the long term investing on FCVs is more cost efficient as the cost of hydrogen refueling structure
development for FCVs is comparable to the development
of charging infrastructure for BEVs and PHEVs if the cost needed for the upgrade of electricity system is excluded 6. This means
that considering the cost of charging infrastructure, the cost for developing
the charging infrastructure for BEVs and PHEVs may even be higher than hydrogen
refueling structure development for FCVs.
It should be noted that in long-term, market mechanism
will play the first role so for the subsidies should cover all technologies as
they are only efficient in the short-term 11.
So although FCVs can reduce the cost of decarburization in the future, their
development will be negligible if regulations towards its support
are not available 11.
From all of this, we conclude
that, although FCVs are more expensive right now, they can play a critical role
in the future transportation mix. At the same time, BEVs, PHEVs, and FCVs are compelemantary
technologies not only in their cost-efficiency based on car size, but also
based on energy supply management and transition to emission-free
transportation. As a result, all these technologies should be subsidized considering their dependency on
incentives for deployment and advantages/disadvantages.
incentives allocated for EV purchase and charging/refueling infrastructure
development shows that the former subsidy is in the form of direct payment to
the customer while the latter can be both
in forms of direct payment to investor and also collaborative investment and management
between the private investor and
local/national institutions. Investigated countries/jurisdictions tend to
support BEV and FCV purchase based on two methods: subsidy based on vehicle
emission (which is in favor of BEVs) and higher subsidy for FCVs compared to
BEVs. One reason for countries/jurisdictions that have provided higher purchase
subsidies to FCVs compared to BEVs is the plan to widespread use of hydrogen in
the whole energy system. However, regardless of the method of incentivizing,
BEVs and PHEVs are more prevalent technologies in all countries/jurisdictions
compare to FCVs.