Economic, environmental, and social performance of electric two-wheelers

Transcription

1 Economic, environmental, and social performance of electric two-wheelers MCWG 19 December 2013 Brussels, Belgium Martin Weiss 1, Peter Dekker 2, Alberto Moro 1, Harald Scholz 1, Martin Patel 3 1 European Commission DG -Joint Research Centre (JRC) 2 Utrecht University (The Netherlands) 3 University of Geneva (Switzerland)

2 Motivation EU 2020 targets: 20% 3 efficiency, renewables, GHG emissions Transport White Paper 2011 Cutting transport-related carbon emissions by 60% until 2050 Phasing out conventionally-fuelled cars in cities Electrification is regarded a key strategy 7 million hybrid-electric cars sold globally since 1997 (2% share in the car market) Battery-electric cars are expensive and suffer short drive ranges and an insufficient recharging infrastructure What are the potentials for smaller and less costly electric two-wheelers?

3 Market Worldwide production in million vehicles Electric two-wheelers (mainly e-bikes) Conventional powered two-wheelers Conventional passenger cars Bicycles Year 19 million bicycles incl. 700k e-bikes sold in the EU in 2012 (380k+170k in GER and NL) 4% market share Sales of larger electric two-wheelers (15k) remain marginal (market share <1%)

4 Economic performance Specific e-bike price in Germany and the Netherlands in EUR 2012 kwh (1999) (2006) R 2 = 0.84 LR = 8 ± 1% (2012) Cumulative global e-bike production in million units

5 Economic performance (1999) (2006) R 2 = 0.84 LR = 8 ± 1% (2012) Specific e-bike price in Germany and the Netherlands in EUR2012 kwh-1 Price difference between e-bikes and bicycles in Germany and the Netherlands in EUR Cumulative global e-bike production in million units (2000) (2006) R 2 = 0.46 LR = 6 ± 3% (2011) Cumulative global e-bike production in million units

6 Economic performance Highly dynamic market -indicative prices for GER and NL based on a limited data sample (in EUR 2012 ; excl. VAT) E-bikes vs. bicycles: 1,400 ± 600 EUR vs. 600 ± 300 EUR Difference: 800 EUR, i.e. a factor >2 Specific e-bike price 4,700 ± 2,000 EUR/kW E-scooters vs. conv. scooters: 2,100 ± 700 EUR vs. 1,200 ± 400 EUR Difference: 900 EUR, i.e., a factor <2 Specific e-scooter price: 1,300 ± 400 EUR/kW E-motorcycles vs. conv. motorcycles: 10,000 ± 2,600 EUR vs. 6,000 ± 1,600 EUR Difference: 4,000 EUR, i.e., a factor <2 Specific e-motorcycle price: 320 ± 100 EUR/kW Electric cars: 30,000 ± xxx EUR vs. 13,000 ± xxx EUR Difference: 17,000, i.e., a factor >2 Specific e-car price: 480 ± xxx EUR/kW E-bikes are offered at a small absolute price premium E-bikes offer an apparent additional use value Price premium increases with vehicle power

7 Economic performance Preliminary results E-bike E-scooter Electric two-wheelers E-motorcycle Conventional scooter Conventional motorcycle Individual motorized transport Passenger car Bicycle Bus Tram Train Non-motorized and public transport The Netherlands (Dekker, 2013) China (Weinert, 2007) China (Cherry, 2007) Taiwan (Chiu and Tzeng, 1999) Total user costs in EUR 2012 km -1

8 Environmental performance Preliminary results 100 Energy use in kwh 100 km -1 GHG emissions in kg CO 2 -equivalents 100 km Tank-to-wheel Well-to-wheel Life cycle Bicycle E-bike, e-scooter, e-motorcycle Conventional scooter and motorcycle Battery-electric car Conventional car Diesel bus Electric rail Actual mode-shift behavior?

9 Social performance Percentage of other transport modes replaced by the use of e-bikes Distance in % Car and conventional powered two-wheeler Bicycle Public transport Additional mobility Other Cherry (2007; two cities in China) Hendriksen et al. (2008; market survey across the Netherlands) Dekker (2013; two cities in the Netherlands) Mode-shift behavior is not negligible Real-world energy savings lower than technical efficiency potentials Heterogeneity in transport infrastructure, income, climate, etc.

10 Social performance Air pollution, noise, traffic jams, parking space, Mobility for elderly people Mode shift and existing infrastructure (dedicated vs. shared infrastructure, recharging) Safety (noise, speed limits, licensing) and vulnerability (vehicle mass, protective gear): secondary effects Scope for policy support

11 Conclusions E-bike sales are growing; technological learning, innovation, and competition have reduced production costs High energy efficiency and zero tail-pipe emissions; suitable to mitigate urban air pollution, noise, GHG emissions Mobility gains ETW are more expensive than conventional twowheelers but Environmental impacts of electricity production are critical Mode-shift behavior Safety concerns and vulnerability Climatic conditions Policy support? Case-specific decisions at local and regional level Integrated approach to urban mobility Be aware of higher-order effects

12 Martin Weiss