Article

Potential for widespread electrification of personal vehicle travel in the United States

  • Nature Energy 1, Article number: 16112 (2016)
  • doi:10.1038/nenergy.2016.112
  • Download Citation
Received:
Accepted:
Published online:

Abstract

Electric vehicles can contribute to climate change mitigation if coupled with decarbonized electricity, but only if vehicle range matches travellers’ needs. Evaluating electric vehicle range against a population’s needs is challenging because detailed driving behaviour must be taken into account. Here we develop a model to combine information from coarse-grained but expansive travel surveys with high-resolution GPS data to estimate the energy requirements of personal vehicle trips across the US. We find that the energy requirements of 87% of vehicle-days could be met by an existing, affordable electric vehicle. This percentage is markedly similar across diverse cities, even when per capita gasoline consumption differs significantly. We also find that for the highest-energy days, other vehicle technologies are likely to be needed even as batteries improve and charging infrastructure expands. Car sharing or other means to serve this small number of high-energy days could play an important role in the electrification and decarbonization of transportation.

  • Subscribe to Nature Energy for full access:

    $59

    Subscribe

  • Purchase article full text and PDF:

    $32

    Buy now

Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.

References

  1. 1.

    US Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook with Projections to 2040 (2014).

  2. 2.

    Federal Highway Administration 2009 National Household Travel Survey (US Department of Transportation, 2011).

  3. 3.

    The White House, Office of the Press Secretary US–China Joint Announcement on Climate Change and Clean Energy Cooperation White House Fact Sheet (2014);

  4. 4.

     & Peak vehicle miles traveled and postpeak consequences? Transp. Res. Record 22–29 (2014).

  5. 5.

    , ,  & Reduce growth rate of light-duty vehicle travel to meet 2050 global climate goals. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 024018 (2011).

  6. 6.

    ,  & Cost and emissions impacts of plug-in hybrid vehicles on the Ohio power system. Energy Policy 38, 6703–6712 (2010).

  7. 7.

    , ,  & A method to estimate the environmental impact of an electric city car during six months of testing in an Italian city. J. Power Sources 270, 487–498 (2014).

  8. 8.

    , ,  & Regional variability and uncertainty of electric vehicle life cycle CO2 emissions across the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 8844–8855 (2015).

  9. 9.

    et al. The technology path to deep greenhouse gas emissions cuts by 2050: the pivotal role of electricity. Science 335, 53–60 (2012).

  10. 10.

    ,  & Low-carbon infrastructure strategies for cities. Nature Clim. Change 4, 343–346 (2014).

  11. 11.

    , , ,  & Optimal design and allocation of electrified vehicles and dedicated charging infrastructure for minimum life cycle greenhouse gas emissions and cost. Energy Policy 51, 524–534 (2012).

  12. 12.

     & Sustainable Transportation Energy Pathways Comparing Greenhouse Gas Emissions 133–170 (UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies, 2011).

  13. 13.

    , ,  & Realizing the electric-vehicle revolution. Nature Clim. Change 2, 328–333 (2012).

  14. 14.

     & Fleet view of electrified transportation reveals smaller potential to reduce GHG emissions. Appl. Energy 138, 393–403 (2015).

  15. 15.

    ,  & Time-dependent plug-in hybrid electric vehicle charging based on national driving patterns and demographics. Appl. Energy 94, 395–405 (2012).

  16. 16.

    ,  & The impact of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on distribution networks: a review and outlook. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 15, 544–553 (2011).

  17. 17.

     & Cost-effectiveness of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle battery capacity and charging infrastructure investment for reducing US gasoline consumption. Energy Policy 52, 429–438 (2013).

  18. 18.

     & Plug-in vehicles and renewable energy sources for cost and emission reductions. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 58, 1229–1238 (2011).

  19. 19.

    Solar-to-vehicle (S2V) systems for powering commuters of the future. J. Power Sources 186, 539–542 (2009).

  20. 20.

     & What drives range preferences in electric vehicle users? Transp. Policy 30, 56–62 (2013).

  21. 21.

     & Barriers to widespread adoption of electric vehicles: an analysis of consumer attitudes and perceptions. Energy Policy 48, 717–729 (2012).

  22. 22.

    , ,  & Willingness to pay for electric vehicles and their attributes. Resour. Energy Econ. 33, 686–705 (2011).

  23. 23.

     & Predicting the market potential of plug-in electric vehicles using multiday GPS data. Energy Policy 46, 225–233 (2012).

  24. 24.

    , ,  & Electric vehicles: How much range is required for a day’s driving? Transp. Res. C 19, 1171–1184 (2011).

  25. 25.

    ,  & Potential of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to reduce petroleum use. Transp. Res. Record 55–63 (2009).

  26. 26.

     & Influence of driving patterns on life cycle cost and emissions of hybrid and plug-in electric vehicle powertrains. Energy Policy 60, 445–461 (2013).

  27. 27.

     & Effects of regional temperature on electric vehicle efficiency, range, and emissions in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 3974–3980 (2015).

  28. 28.

     & Gasoline consumption and cities. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 55, 24–37 (1989).

  29. 29.

     & Effects of built environments on vehicle miles traveled: evidence from 370 US urbanized areas. Environ. Plan. A 42, 400–418 (2010).

  30. 30.

    ,  & Cities, traffic, and CO2: a multidecadal assessment of trends, drivers, and scaling relationships. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 4999–5004 (2015).

  31. 31.

    , ,  & Personal vehicle technologies evaluated against climate change mitigation targets. Environ. Sci. Technol. (in the press).

  32. 32.

     & Users Manual for TMY3 Data Sets NREL/TP-581-43156 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2008).

  33. 33.

    The Transportation Secure Data Center California Household Transportation Survey DOE-019-9889603959 (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2012).

  34. 34.

    Fuel Economy Test Car List Database Files (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2015);

  35. 35.

    Nissan 2013 Leaf Owner’s Manual (2013).

  36. 36.

    Batteries for Electrical Energy Storage in Transportation (BEEST) (ARPA-E, United States Department of Energy, 2010);

  37. 37.

    ,  & Impact of driving characteristics on electric vehicle energy consumption and range. Intel. Trans. Syst., IET 6, 29–35 (2012).

  38. 38.

    ,  & Impacts of driving patterns on tank-to-wheel energy use of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Transp. Res. D 17, 243–250 (2012).

  39. 39.

    , , ,  & Transportation Research Board 86th Annual Meeting 07-1688 (2007).

  40. 40.

    The origins of scaling in cities. Science 340, 1438–1441 (2013).

  41. 41.

     & A unified theory of urban living. Nature 467, 912–913 (2010).

  42. 42.

    Argonne National Laboratory GREET 1 model (2014);

  43. 43.

    Office of Highway Policy Information FHWA Forecasts of Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): May 2015 (Federal Highway Administration, 2015).

  44. 44.

     & Reductions of greenhouse gas emissions in Annex I and non-Annex I countries for meeting concentration stabilization targets. Climatic Change 91, 249–274 (2008).

  45. 45.

    , ,  & Effectiveness of a segmental approach to climate policy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 27–35 (2014).

  46. 46.

    SB-350, Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015 (California, 2015);

  47. 47.

     & Sustainable Automotive Technologies 2013 289–298 (Springer, 2014).

  48. 48.

    Management of a Shared, Autonomous, Electric Vehicle Fleet: Vehicle Choice, Charging Infrastructure & Pricing Strategies PhD thesis, Univ. Texas at Austin (2015).

  49. 49.

    A technical analysis of model year 2011 US automobile efficiency. Transp. Res. D 17, 361–369 (2012).

  50. 50.

    2013 American Community Survey 1-year estimate Table B01003 (United States Census Bureau, 2014).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank M. Miotti for his contributions to the auxiliary power component of the TripEnergy model, and F. Riether for his contributions to characterizing the model robustness. We thank J. Heywood and S. Zoepf for their feedback on the vehicle model. We thank L. Chancel for a helpful discussion of transportation energy consumption in cities. This work was supported by the New England University Transportation Center at MIT under DOT grant No. DTRT13-G-UTC31, the MIT Leading Technology and Policy Initiative, the Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology, the Charles E. Reed Faculty Initiatives Fund, and the MIT Energy Initiative.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Institute for Data, Systems, and Society, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA

    • Zachary A. Needell
    • , James McNerney
    • , Michael T. Chang
    •  & Jessika E. Trancik
  2. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, USA

    • Zachary A. Needell
  3. Santa Fe Institute, Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501, USA

    • Jessika E. Trancik

Authors

  1. Search for Zachary A. Needell in:

  2. Search for James McNerney in:

  3. Search for Michael T. Chang in:

  4. Search for Jessika E. Trancik in:

Contributions

J.E.T. designed the study; J.M., M.T.C., Z.A.N. and J.E.T. built the model; Z.A.N., M.T.C., J.M. and J.E.T. performed the analysis; J.E.T., Z.A.N. and J.M. wrote the paper.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessika E. Trancik.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Information

    Supplementary Figures 1–12, Supplementary Tables 1–5, Supplementary Notes 1–4, Supplementary References.