Mrityunjay Singh

Electric vehicles – Scope and Future Predictions on future of electric vehicles by sales percentage % of EV's ➢ ➢ ➢ ➢ Current market share of electric vehicles is 3% as of May 2020. Electric vehicles will hit 10% of global passenger vehicle sales by 2025 Percentage of electric vehicle sales to increase to 28% by 2030 Percentage of electric vehicle sales to further increase to 58% 2040 80% 58% 60% 40% 20% 28% 3% 10% 0% 2020 2025 2040 % of EV's Predictions on future of electric vehicles by vehicle segmentation ➢ Electric vehicles are predicted to represent 31% of all cars on road by 2040 ➢ Electric vehicles are predicted to represent 67% of all municipal buses on road by 2040 ➢ Electric vehicles are predicted to represent 47% of all two-wheelers (scooters, mopeds, motorcycles and so on) on road by 2040 ➢ Electric vehicles are predicted to represent 24% of all light commercial vehicles on road by 2040 2030 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 69% 76% 67% 47% 31% Cars 53% 33% Muncipal buses EV's 24% Two- Wheelers ICE EV- Electric Vehicle ICE- Internal combustion engine Light Commercial vehicles Policies favoring electric vehicle adoption ✓ European Vehicle Carbon dioxide regulation ✓ China’s Electric vehicle credit system and fuel economy regulations ✓ India’s regulation to off-road all conventional internal combustion engines by 2030 Reasons favoring electric vehicle ✓ No usage of fossil fuel, a resource which is depleting fast ✓ No requirement of internal combustion, hence no emission of carbon dioxide and carbon mono oxide ✓ Environment friendly ✓ Economical, as there is no regular maintenance required ✓ Possibility of easy self charge with the advent of better photo voltaic cells Do BEVs truly offer an environmental advantage with respect to global warming potential and secondary environmental impacts – and if so, at what cost? A rigorous quantitative analysis, excluding any government incentives or subsidies, to evaluate the true cost and environmental implications of BEVs was conducted. From R&D and manufacture, including raw material procurement, to ownership and end-of-life disposal, our study covers every aspect of the vehicle's lifecycle. For BEVs (Battery Electric Vehicle/s) and ICEVs (Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle/s), we developed models to assess 2015 Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), Global Warming Potential (GWP), and Secondary Environmental Impacts (e.g., Human Toxicity Potential described as Disability Adjusted Life Years lost). To begin with, the electricity cost of operating a BEV over a one-mile trip is much lower than the gasoline cost of operating a comparable ICEV over the same distance. Second, due to the relative elegance and simplicity of a battery-electric motor system vs the periodic maintenance necessary for functioning of an internal combustion engine, BEVs are less expensive to operate. Third, automobile battery technology has advanced fast since the current generation of BEVs hit the market, with lithium-ion battery packs dropping in price per kilowatt-hour (kWh) from $1,126 in 2010 to just $300 in 2015. While most of the environmental impacts generated by ICEV’s are localized to combustion of gasoline in the vehicle engine. Manufacturing process for BEV’s generate a much more dispersed and damaging set of environmental impacts. In particular, the usage of heavy metals in the manufacture of lithium-ion battery pack. Compounded with the pollution generated by the coal power plant for charging the batteries is approximately 3 times the amount of human toxicity. Green house gases emission comparison over a 20-year life cycle Days of life impact (Death or disability for a ICEV versus BEV over a 20-year ownership lifecycle Total cost of ownership comparison between ICEV and an equivalent BEV Total of Ownership for a BEV is significantly higher that of an equivalent ICEV. Ultimately the cost barrier has impacted wider adoption of the BEV’s Total cost of ownership over a 20-year lifetime of ICEV v/s an equivalent BEV In Thousands of Dollars Total cost of ownership over a 20-year lifetime of compact ICEV v/s an equivalent BEV In Thousands of Dollars Total cost of ownership over a 20-year lifetime of mid size ICEV v/s an equivalent BEV In Thousands of Dollars Environmental Assessment: Global Warming Potential Tailpipes emissions from gasoline combustion in an internal combustion engine combined with upstream emissions associated with gasoline production and distribution contribute the majority of greenhouse gas emission from ICEV. BEV’s on the other hand do not produce any tailpipe emission, however the BEV’s rely on the powerplants and grid. Furthermore, BEV’s batteries require different inputs such as heavy metal mining and purification, battery cell manufacture which involves organic solvents and various chemical processes. GWP Emissions from Battery Manufacturing In Kg of CO2 emissions per Kg of Battery Weight Emissions over a 20-year lifetime for a ICEV versus an equivalent BEV In pounds of CO2 emissions GWP emissions from a compact ICEV v/s equivalent BEV at different stages of vehicle life GWP emissions from a mid size ICEV v/s equivalent BEV at different stages of vehicle life In pounds of CO2 emission In pounds of CO2 emission Environmental Assessment: Secondary Environmental Impact In addition to global warming potential, there are other multiple environmental impacts which arise out of ICEV and BEV operations. There is direct impact on human, terrestrial, aquatic life and depletion of natural resources. ❖ Human toxicity potential (HTP) is a calculated index that reflects the potential harm to humans from a unit of chemical released into the environment ❖ Fresh water toxicity potential (FTP) is a calculated index that reflects the potential harm to freshwater organisms from a unit of chemical released into the environment. ❖ Terrestrial toxicity potential (TTP) is calculated index that reflects the potential harm to terrestrial organism from a unit of chemical released into the environment ❖ Mineral depletion potential (MDP) is a measure of consumption of natural resources especially those which are mined (expressed in grams of ironequivalent) ❖ Fossil fuel depletion potential (FFDP) is a measure of consumption of fossil fuel (expressed in grams of oil equivalent) We have found that over a 20-year vehicle lifetime of BEV generated enough toxicity potential to impact human health by 20 days loss of life or disability. Days of life impact (death or disability) for a compact passenger ICEV v/s an equivalent BEV over 20 years of ownership Technology forecast: BEVs and ICEV’s for 2025 Given that BEV technology is still in the nascent stage, many of the factors presented above are going to change over a period of time. ❑ If the cost per Kwh and environmental impacts of lithium-ion batteries decline, that would radically alter the scenario for BEV’s ❑ Since the launch of BEV’s cost of batteries have declined by 70% ❑ Projections are that cost per Kwh of lithium-ion battery packs would be further reduced by 60% until 2025. ❑ Range of BEV’s would improve over a period of time further reducing the requirement of ICEV’s ❑ Despite the significant technological advancements in BEV’s, total cost of ownership advantage would be still retained by ICEV’s for compact vehicles by 12% and for mid-sized vehicle ICEV’s would still hold advantage of 20% ❑ However, regarding GWP the advantage would be in favor of BEV’s by 27% for a compact vehicle and by 23% for a mid-sized vehicle, over an ICEV ❑ Compact BEV would generate approximately 1700 more pounds of CO2 equivalents than the comparable ICEV by 2025, whereas a mid-sized BEV would generate approximately 4600 more pounds of CO2 equivalents than the comparable ICEV Total cost of ownership (TCO) over a 20year lifetime for a compact ICEV and an equivalent BEV (2015 v/s 2025) Total cost of ownership (TCO) in thousands of dollars over a 20-year lifetime for a 2025 Compact passenger ICEV v/s and equivalent BEV Emissions of CO2 from a compact passenger ICEV compared to an equivalent BEV (2015 v/s 2025) GWP emissions from a 2025 compact passenger v/s and equivalent BEV at different stages of Vehicle life Conclusion Ultimately, improvements in technology come with a cost – and whether it is paid in dollars, green house gas emission or human health impacts, BEV’s and ICEV’s both present a complex set of economic and environmental trade-offs. Advancement in one of the areas are unavoidably connected to impact others. As the technologies for BEV’s and ICEV’s continue to evolve – TCO, GWP, and secondary environmental impacts will all shift to some degree. While the 44% TCO differential favors compact ICEV’s over BEV’s in the current scenario, that variance declines to only 10% in 2025. 23% GWP variance favors the compact BEV’s over ICEV’s currently, will increase to 27% by 2025 HTP generated by BEV’s will increase by more than half in 2025, representing the trade-off between greenhouse gas emissions and human health impacts. Impact Vehicle type Currently 2025 2025 v/s current Thank You