Search results

In Europe the transport sector contributes about 25% of total GHG emissions, 75% of which come from road transport. Contrarily to industrial emissions road emissions have increased over the period 1990-2015 in OECD countries: California (+26%), Germany (0%), France (+12%), Japan (+2%), Denmark (+30%). The number of registered vehicles on road in these countries amounts respectively to: California (33 million), Germany (61.5 million), France (38 million), Japan (77 million), Denmark (4 million). Even if these numbers are not expected to grow in the future this calls for major programs to reduce the corresponding GHG emissions in order to achieve the global GHG targets for 2050. The benefits from these programs will spread out to non OECD countries in which road emissions are bound to increase. Programs to promote zero emissions vehicles (ZEV) effectively started in the 2000's through public private partnerships involving government agencies, manufacturers, utilities and fuel companies. These partnerships provided subsidies for R&D, pilot programs and infrastructure. Moreover, technical norms for emissions, global requirements for the portfolio of sales for manufacturers, rebates on the purchasing price for customers as well as various perks (driving bus lanes, free parking, etc.) are now in place. These multiple policy instruments constitute powerful incentives to orient the strategies of manufacturers and to stimulate the demand for ZEV. The carbon tax on the distribution of fossil fuels, whenever it exists, remains low and, at this stage, cannot be considered as an important driving force. The cases studies reveal important differences for the deployment of battery electric vehicle (BEV) versus fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV). BEV is leading the game with a cheaper infrastructure investment cost and a lower cost for vehicle. The relatively low autonomy makes BEV mostly suited for urban use, which is a large segment of the road market. The current level of BEV vehicles on roads starts to be significant ...

In Europe the transport sector contributes about 25% of total GHG emissions, 75% of which come from road transport. Contrarily to industrial emissions road emissions have increased over the period 1990-2015 in OECD countries: California (+26%), Germany (0%), France (+12%), Japan (+2%), Denmark (+30%). The number of registered vehicles on road in these countries amounts respectively to: California (33 million), Germany (61.5 million), France (38 million), Japan (77 million), Denmark (4 million). Even if these numbers are not expected to grow in the future this calls for major programs to reduce the corresponding GHG emissions in order to achieve the global GHG targets for 2050. The benefits from these programs will spread out to non OECD countries in which road emissions are bound to increase. Programs to promote zero emissions vehicles (ZEV) effectively started in the 2000's through public private partnerships involving government agencies, manufacturers, utilities and fuel companies. These partnerships provided subsidies for R&D, pilot programs and infrastructure. Moreover, technical norms for emissions, global requirements for the portfolio of sales for manufacturers, rebates on the purchasing price for customers as well as various perks (driving bus lanes, free parking, etc.) are now in place. These multiple policy instruments constitute powerful incentives to orient the strategies of manufacturers and to stimulate the demand for ZEV. The carbon tax on the distribution of fossil fuels, whenever it exists, remains low and, at this stage, cannot be considered as an important driving force. The cases studies reveal important differences for the deployment of battery electric vehicle (BEV) versus fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV). BEV is leading the game with a cheaper infrastructure investment cost and a lower cost for vehicle. The relatively low autonomy makes BEV mostly suited for urban use, which is a large segment of the road market. The current level of BEV vehicles on roads starts to be significant ...

In Europe the transport sector contributes about 25% of total GHG emissions, 75% of which come from road transport. Contrarily to industrial emissions road emissions have increased over the period 1990-2015 in OECD countries: California (+26%), Germany (0%), France (+12%), Japan (+2%), Denmark (+30%). The number of registered vehicles on road in these countries amounts respectively to: California (33 million), Germany (61.5 million), France (38 million), Japan (77 million), Denmark (4 million). Even if these numbers are not expected to grow in the future this calls for major programs to reduce the corresponding GHG emissions in order to achieve the global GHG targets for 2050. The benefits from these programs will spread out to non OECD countries in which road emissions are bound to increase. Programs to promote zero emissions vehicles (ZEV) effectively started in the 2000's through public private partnerships involving government agencies, manufacturers, utilities and fuel companies. These partnerships provided subsidies for R&D, pilot programs and infrastructure. Moreover, technical norms for emissions, global requirements for the portfolio of sales for manufacturers, rebates on the purchasing price for customers as well as various perks (driving bus lanes, free parking, etc.) are now in place. These multiple policy instruments constitute powerful incentives to orient the strategies of manufacturers and to stimulate the demand for ZEV. The carbon tax on the distribution of fossil fuels, whenever it exists, remains low and, at this stage, cannot be considered as an important driving force. The cases studies reveal important differences for the deployment of battery electric vehicle (BEV) versus fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV). BEV is leading the game with a cheaper infrastructure investment cost and a lower cost for vehicle. The relatively low autonomy makes BEV mostly suited for urban use, which is a large segment of the road market. The current level of BEV vehicles on roads starts to be significant with California (70,000), Germany (25,000), France (31,000), Japan (608,000) Denmark (3,000), but they remain very low relative to the targets for 2020: California (1.5 million), Germany (1 million), France (2 million), Japan (0.8-1.1 million for ZEV new registrations), Denmark (0.25 million). The developments and efficiency gains in battery technology along with subsidies for battery charging public stations are expected to facilitate the achievement of the growth. The relative rates of equipment (number of publicly available stations / number of BEV) provide indirect evidence on the effort made in the different countries: California (3%), Germany (12%), France (28%), Japan (11%), and Denmark (61%). In some countries public procurement plays a significant role. In France Autolib (publicly available cars in towns) represents a large share of the overall BEV deployment (12%), and the government recently announced a 50% target for low emissions in all public vehicles new equipment. FCEV is still in an early deployment stage due to a higher infrastructure investment cost and a higher cost for vehicle. The relatively high autonomy combined with speed refueling make FCEV mostly suited for long distance and interurban usage. At present there are only a very limited numbers of HRS deployed: California (28), Germany (15), France (6), Japan (31), Japan (7), Denmark (7), and only a few units of H2 vehicles on road: California (300), Germany (125), France (60), Japan (7), Denmark (21). However, a detailed analysis of the current road maps suggests that FCEV has a large potential. Targets for the 2025-2030 horizons are significant in particular in Germany (4% in 2030), Denmark (4.5% in 2025) and Japan (15-20% for ZEV new registrations in 2020). The California ARB has recently redefined its program (subsidies and mandates) to provide higher incentives for FCEV. France appears to focus on specialized regional submarkets to promote FCEV (such as the use of H2 range extending light utility vehicles). The financing of the H2 infrastructure appears as a bottleneck for FCEV deployment. Roadmaps address this issue through progressive geographical expansion (clusters) and a high level of public subsidies hydrogen refueling station (HRS) in particular in all countries except France. At this stage of BEV and FCEV do not appear as direct competitors; they address distinct market segments. Unexpected delays in the development of infrastructure in FCEV, possible breakthroughs in battery technology, and the promotion of national champions may change the nature of this competition, making it more intense in the future.

In Europe the transport sector contributes about 25% of total GHG emissions, 75% of which come from road transport. Contrarily to industrial emissions road emissions have increased over the period 1990-2015 in OECD countries: California (+26%), Germany (0%), France (+12%), Japan (+2%), Denmark (+30%). The number of registered vehicles on road in these countries amounts respectively to: California (33 million), Germany (61.5 million), France (38 million), Japan (77 million), Denmark (4 million). Even if these numbers are not expected to grow in the future this calls for major programs to reduce the corresponding GHG emissions in order to achieve the global GHG targets for 2050. The benefits from these programs will spread out to non OECD countries in which road emissions are bound to increase. Programs to promote zero emissions vehicles (ZEV) effectively started in the 2000's through public private partnerships involving government agencies, manufacturers, utilities and fuel companies. These partnerships provided subsidies for R&D, pilot programs and infrastructure. Moreover, technical norms for emissions, global requirements for the portfolio of sales for manufacturers, rebates on the purchasing price for customers as well as various perks (driving bus lanes, free parking, etc.) are now in place. These multiple policy instruments constitute powerful incentives to orient the strategies of manufacturers and to stimulate the demand for ZEV. The carbon tax on the distribution of fossil fuels, whenever it exists, remains low and, at this stage, cannot be considered as an important driving force. The cases studies reveal important differences for the deployment of battery electric vehicle (BEV) versus fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV). BEV is leading the game with a cheaper infrastructure investment cost and a lower cost for vehicle. The relatively low autonomy makes BEV mostly suited for urban use, which is a large segment of the road market. The current level of BEV vehicles on roads starts to be significant with California (70,000), Germany (25,000), France (31,000), Japan (608,000) Denmark (3,000), but they remain very low relative to the targets for 2020: California (1.5 million), Germany (1 million), France (2 million), Japan (0.8-1.1 million for ZEV new registrations), Denmark (0.25 million). The developments and efficiency gains in battery technology along with subsidies for battery charging public stations are expected to facilitate the achievement of the growth. The relative rates of equipment (number of publicly available stations / number of BEV) provide indirect evidence on the effort made in the different countries: California (3%), Germany (12%), France (28%), Japan (11%), and Denmark (61%). In some countries public procurement plays a significant role. In France Autolib (publicly available cars in towns) represents a large share of the overall BEV deployment (12%), and the government recently announced a 50% target for low emissions in all public vehicles new equipment. FCEV is still in an early deployment stage due to a higher infrastructure investment cost and a higher cost for vehicle. The relatively high autonomy combined with speed refueling make FCEV mostly suited for long distance and interurban usage. At present there are only a very limited numbers of HRS deployed: California (28), Germany (15), France (6), Japan (31), Japan (7), Denmark (7), and only a few units of H2 vehicles on road: California (300), Germany (125), France (60), Japan (7), Denmark (21). However, a detailed analysis of the current road maps suggests that FCEV has a large potential. Targets for the 2025-2030 horizons are significant in particular in Germany (4% in 2030), Denmark (4.5% in 2025) and Japan (15-20% for ZEV new registrations in 2020). The California ARB has recently redefined its program (subsidies and mandates) to provide higher incentives for FCEV. France appears to focus on specialized regional submarkets to promote FCEV (such as the use of H2 range extending light utility vehicles). The financing of the H2 infrastructure appears as a bottleneck for FCEV deployment. Roadmaps address this issue through progressive geographical expansion (clusters) and a high level of public subsidies hydrogen refueling station (HRS) in particular in all countries except France. At this stage of BEV and FCEV do not appear as direct competitors; they address distinct market segments. Unexpected delays in the development of infrastructure in FCEV, possible breakthroughs in battery technology, and the promotion of national champions may change the nature of this competition, making it more intense in the future.

Zentrales Instrument für die Minderung der CO2-Emissionen von PKW sind die europäischen Flottenzielwerte (Verordnung (EU) 2019/631). Sowohl für PKW mit Verbrennungsmotor als auch für Elektrofahrzeuge wird hier aktuell das WLTP-Testverfahren zur Bestimmung des offiziellen Energieverbrauchs genutzt. Es handelt sich jedoch um einen Test auf dem Rollenprüfstand und die Abbildung des realen Verbrauchsverhaltens bleibt eingeschränkt. Neben den Verbrauchsunterschieden durch unterschiedliche Fahrprofile können auch andere Verbraucher (Nicht-Antriebs-Energie = NAE) zu Abweichungen zwischen WLTP- und Realverbrauch führen. Vor allem werden wichtige Verbraucher wie die Klimaanlage nicht erfasst. Bei Elektroautos (BEV) kann der Anteil des NAE-Verbrauchs am Gesamtverbrauch tendenziell noch höher liegen als bei Verbrennern. Infolge der hohen Wirkungsgrade von Batterie und Elektromotor entstehen geringere Wärmeverluste, so dass für die Heizung des Fahrgastraumes bei Elektroantrieben zusätzliche Energie aufgewendet werden muss. Darüber hinaus gibt es im Elektrofahrzeug zusätzliche Verbraucher wie z.B. die Temperierung der Batterie. Solche Heizenergiebedarfe sind im Test nicht erfasst. Ladeverluste sind dagegen im Messverfahren zwar enthalten, es handelt sich voraussichtlich jedoch um Idealwerte, da der Hersteller eine optimale Ladestrategie wählen darf. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist es Ziel der Studie, den Beitrag des NAE-Verbrauchs zum Gesamtverbrauch von BEV im Realbetrieb darzustellen. Auf dieser Basis werden dann Vorschläge entwickelt, wie das Verfahren des WLTP für die offiziellen Verbrauchsangaben sinnvoll angepasst und erweitert werden kann. Die Vorschläge zielen auf eine realitätsnähere Abbildung der Verbräuche von Elektrofahrzeugen im offiziellen Testverfahren WLTP.

Among topics discussed: Family background; education; how Engram became involved in politics; Cliff Davis; Georgia politics; political strategies; education issues; campaign organizing; constituent service; campaign financing; reapportionment; learning to ; Bev Engram represented District 34 in S. Fulton County, in the Georgia Senate from 1981 to 1989.

Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) have seen a substantial growth in the recent past, and this trend is expected to continue. This growth has been far from uniform geographically, with large differences in BEV uptake between countries, states, and cities. This non-uniform growth can be attributed to the demographic and non-demographic factors that characterize a geographical location. In this paper, the demographic factors that affect BEV uptake at the Zone Improvement Plan (ZIP) code level are studied extensively across several states in the United States to understand BEV readiness at its most granular form. Demographic statistics at the ZIP code level more accurately describe the local population than national-, state-, or city-level demographics. This study compiled and preprocessed 242 demographic features to study the impact on BEV uptake in 7155 ZIP codes in 11 states. These demographic features are categorized based on the type of information they convey. The initial demographic features are subjected to feature engineering using various formed hypotheses to extract the optimal level of information. The hypotheses are tested and a total of 82 statistically significant features are selected. This study used correlation analysis to validate the feature engineering and understand the degree of correlation of these features to BEV uptake, both within individual states and at the national level. Results from this study indicate that higher BEV adoption in a state results in a stronger correlation between demographic factors and BEV uptake. Features related to the number of individuals in a ZIP code with an annual income greater than USD 75 thousand are strongly correlated with BEV uptake, followed by the number of owner-occupied housing units, individuals driving alone, and working from home. Features containing compounded information from distinct categories are often better correlated than features containing information from a single category. In-depth knowledge of local BEV uptake is important for applications related to the accommodation of BEVs, and understanding what causes differences in local uptake can allow for both the prediction of future growth and the stimulation of it.