Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Personal vehicle electrification and charging solutions for high-energy days

Abstract

Questions remain on the effectiveness of different proposals for battery electric vehicle (BEV) charging and other supporting infrastructure. Here we investigate options for charging BEVs and supplementing them with long-range vehicles, including on the infrequent high-energy days that can otherwise impede personal vehicle electrification. We examine travel activities and their energy requirements—in Seattle and US-wide—to identify strategies that fit existing lifestyles. We find that home charging on- or off-street is pivotal in all strategies and that highway fast charging and/or supplementary vehicles can be impactful additions. For example, home charging can support the year-round energy requirements of approximately 10% of Seattle vehicles, assuming a lower-cost BEV, but adding occasional highway fast charging or supplementary vehicles on four days per year raises this value to nearly 40%. Infrequent supplementary vehicles may be needed even as battery technology improves. Our results outline potential solutions for nations, cities, companies and communities seeking to support widespread vehicle electrification despite the challenge of high-energy days.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: BEV trip energy intensity and vehicle-day energy distribution in Seattle.
Fig. 2: Longitudinal vehicle trip patterns.
Fig. 3: VEP in Seattle with different charging availabilities.
Fig. 4: The characteristics of highway fast charging required to electrify vehicle-days in Seattle.
Fig. 5: The effect of supplementary vehicles on electrification potential with different charging availabilities in Seattle.
Fig. 6: The characteristics of unelectrified vehicle-days with a 40 kWh BEV and 6.6 kW home and work charging in Seattle.
Fig. 7: The fraction of US vehicle-days electrified with different charging availabilities and the vehicle-day energy distribution in the US and Seattle.
Fig. 8: Vehicle electrification potential (VEP) with strategic packages of charging and supplementary vehicles in Seattle.

Data availability

The 2004–2006 Puget Sound Regional Council Traffic Choices Study data that were analysed during the current study are available to the public from National Renewable Energy Laboratory at www.nrel.gov/tsdc. The 2017 National Household Travel Survey is also available to the public from Oak Ridge National Laboratory at https://nhts.ornl.gov. The trip energy consumption data produced in this study can be reproduced by applying the TripEnergy model to the two travel datasets described above. Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

All steps in analysis are described either in equations (17) or in previous manuscripts documenting the TripEnergy model10,27 (US patent no. US20180045526A1).

References

  1. 1.

    Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 19902015 Technical Report (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2017).

  2. 2.

    Miotti, M., Supran, G. J., Kim, E. J. & Trancik, J. E. Personal vehicles evaluated against climate change mitigation targets. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 10795–10804 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Noshadravan, A., Cheah, L., Roth, R., Dias, L. & Gregory, J. Stochastic comparative assessment of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from conventional and electric vehicles. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20, 854–864 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Ma, H., Balthasar, F., Tait, N., Riera-Palou, X. & Harrison, A. A new comparison between the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of battery electric vehicles and internal combustion vehicles. Energy Policy 44, 160–173 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Coignard, J., Saxena, S., Greenblatt, J. & Wang, D. Clean vehicles as an enabler for a clean electricity grid. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 54031 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Turrentine, T. S. Lifestyles and Life Politics: Towards a Green Car Market Techical Report (University of California, 1994).

  7. 7.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Bailey, J., Miele, A. & Axsen, J. Is awareness of public charging associated with consumer interest in plug-in electric vehicles? Transp. Res. D 36, 1–9 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Noel, L. & Sovacool, B. K. Why did better place fail? Range anxiety, interpretive flexibility, and electric vehicle promotion in Denmark and Israel. Energy Policy 94, 377–386 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Needell, Z. A., McNerney, J., Chang, M. T. & Trancik, J. E. Potential for widespread electrification of personal vehicle travel in the United States. Nat. Energy 1, 16112 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Breetz, H. L. & Salon, D. Do electric vehicles need subsidies? Ownership costs for conventional, hybrid, and electric vehicles in 14 U.S. cities. Energy Policy 120, 238–249 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Neubauer, J. & Wood, E. The impact of range anxiety and home, workplace, and public charging infrastructure on simulated battery electric vehicle lifetime utility. J. Power Sources 257, 12–20 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Neaimeh, M. et al. Analysing the usage and evidencing the importance of fast chargers for the adoption of battery electric vehicles. Energy Policy 108, 474–486 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Lin, Z. & Greene, D. L. Promoting the market for plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles. Transp. Res. Rec. 2252, 49–56 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Pearre, N. S., Kempton, W., Guensler, R. L. & Elango, V. V. Electric vehicles: how much range is required for a day’s driving? Transp. Res. C 19, 1171–1184 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Zhang, L., Brown, T. & Samuelsen, S. Evaluation of charging infrastructure requirements and operating costs for plug-in electric vehicles. J. Power Sources 240, 515–524 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Dong, J., Liu, C. & Lin, Z. Charging infrastructure planning for promoting battery electric vehicles: an activity-based approach using multiday travel data. Transp. Res. C 38, 44–55 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Dong, J. & Lin, Z. Stochastic modeling of battery electric vehicle driver behavior: impact of charging infrastructure deployment on the feasibility of battery electric vehicles. Transp. Res. Rec. 2454, 61–67 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Greaves, S., Backman, H. & Ellison, A. B. An empirical assessment of the feasibility of battery electric vehicles for day-to-day driving. Transp. Res. A 66, 226–237 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Kontou, E., Yin, Y., Lin, Z. & He, F. Socially optimal replacement of conventional with electric vehicles for the US household fleet. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 11, 749–763 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Wu, X. Role of workplace charging opportunities on adoption of plug-in electric vehicles - Analysis based on GPS-based longitudinal travel data. Energy Policy 114, 367–379 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Zhou, Y., Wen, R., Wang, H. & Cai, H. Optimal battery electric vehicles range: a study considering heterogeneous travel patterns, charging behaviors, and access to charging infrastructure. Energy 197, 116945 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Lin, Z. Optimizing and diversifying electric vehicle driving range for U.S. drivers. Transp. Sci. 48, 635–650 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Puget Sound Traffic Choices Study Technical Report (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2019); www.nrel.gov/tsdc

  26. 26.

    2017 National Household Travel Survey Technical Report (US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2018); www.nhts.ornl.gov

  27. 27.

    McNerney, J., Needell, Z. A., Chang, M. T., Miotti, M. & Trancik, J. E. TripEnergy: estimating personal vehicle energy consumption given limited travel survey data. Transportation Res. Rec. 2628, 58–66 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Berry, I. M. The Effects of Driving Style and Vehicle Performance on the Real-World Fuel Consumption of US Light-Duty Vehicles. MSc Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2010).

  29. 29.

    Requia, W. J., Mohamed, M., Higgins, C. D., Arain, A. & Ferguson, M. How clean are electric vehicles? Evidence-based review of the effects of electric mobility on air pollutants, greenhouse gas emissions and human health. Atmos. Environ. 185, 64–77 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Hajat, A., Hsia, C. & O’Neill, M. S. Socioeconomic disparities and air pollution exposure: a global review. Curr. Environ. Health Rep. 2, 440–450 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Klemun, M. M., Edwards, M. R. & Trancik, J. E. Research priorities for supporting subnational climate policies. WIREs Clim. Change 11, e646 (2020).

  32. 32.

    Jakobsson, N., Gnann, T., Plötz, P., Sprei, F. & Karlsson, S. Are multi-car households better suited for battery electric vehicles? Driving patterns and economics in Sweden and Germany. Transp. Res. C 65, 1–15 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Tong, F. & Azevedo, I. M. L. What are the best combinations of fuel-vehicle technologies to mitigate climate change and air pollution effects across the United States? Environ. Res. Lett. 15, 074046 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    California Household Transportation Survey Technical Report (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2012); www.nrel.gov/transportation/secure-transportation-data/tsdc-california-travel-survey.html

  35. 35.

    Regional Travel Survey: Final report Technical Report (Atlanta Regional Commission, 2011); atlantaregional.org/transportation-mobility/modeling/household-travel-survey/

  36. 36.

    2002–2011 Regional Travel Surveys with GPS data for Abilene, Austin, El Paso, Houston Galveston, Laredo, Rio Grande Valley, San Antonio, Tyler Longview, and Wichita Falls Technical Report (Texas Department of Transportation, 2014); www.nrel.gov/transportation/secure-transportation-data/tsdc-texas-regional-travel-surveys.html

  37. 37.

    Markel, T. J. et al. ADVISOR: a systems analysis tool for advanced vehicle modelling. J. Power Sources 110, 255–266 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Data on Cars used for Testing Fuel Economy (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2017); www.epa.gov/compliance-and-fuel-economy-data/data-cars-used-testing-fuel-economy

  39. 39.

    Miotti, M. Variability in the Emissions Savings Potential of Battery Electric Vehicles Across Regions and Individuals. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2020).

  40. 40.

    Nicol, F. Adaptive thermal comfort standards in the hot-humid tropics. Energy Build. 36, 628–637 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Wilcox, S. & Marion, W. Users Manual for TMY3 Data Sets Technical Report (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2008).

  42. 42.

    National Solar Radiation Database Technical Report (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2019); nsrdb.nrel.gov/

  43. 43.

    Sears, J., Roberts, D. & Glitman, K. A comparison of electric vehicle level 1 and level 2 charging efficiency. In 2014 IEEE Conference on Technologies for Sustainability, SusTech 2014 255–258 (IEEE, 2014).

  44. 44.

    Genovese, A., Ortenzi, F. & Villante, C. On the energy efficiency of quick DC vehicle battery charging. World Electr. Veh. J. 7, 570–576 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Trentadue, G., Lucas, A., Otura, M., Pliakostathis, K., Zanni, M. & Scholz, H. Evaluation of fast charging efficiency under extreme temperatures. Energies 11, 1–13 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    2009 National Household Travel Survey Technical Report (US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2011); www.nhts.ornl.gov

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was funded (under the MIT Portugal Program project title: Climate-Driven Technologies for Low-Carbon Cities (C-Tech), reference 45919) by the European Regional Development Fund’s Operational Program for Competitiveness and Internationalisation (COMPETE 2020), the Lisbon Portugal Regional Operational Program (LISBOA 2020), and the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT). This research was also funded by the US Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) TRANSNET Program (award no. DE-AR0000611).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

J.E.T. developed the study concept. J.E.T. and W.W. designed the methodology. W.W., S.R., Z.A.N. and J.E.T. built the model. W.W. and J.E.T. performed the analysis. J.E.T. and W.W. wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessika E. Trancik.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The patent of TripEnergy model used for trip energy estimation is pending. The patent applicant is Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The inventors are J. E. Trancik, Z. A. Needell and J. McNerney. The application no. is US20180045526A1.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Notes 1–15, Figs. 1–38 and Tables 1–7.

Reporting Summary

Source data

Source Data Fig. 1

The first column is raw data of Seattle trip fuel economy used to plot the histogram in Fig. 1a. The second column is raw data of Seattle vehicle-day energy requirements used to plot the histogram in Fig. 1b.

Source Data Fig. 3

The first column is the range of battery capacities plotted in kilowatt-hours, the second to eighth column each corresponds to VEP with (2) work charging; (3) home charging; (4) home and work charging; (5) home, work and overnight public charging; (6) home, work and ubiquitous public charging, (7) home, work and fast charging on the longest highway trip per day; and (8) home, work and fast charging on all highway trips.

Source Data Fig. 4

The first column is raw data of fast charging frequency used to plot the histogram in Fig. 4a. The second column is raw data of fast charging duration used to plot the histogram in Fig. 4b.

Source Data Fig. 5

The first column is the range of battery capacities plotted in kilowatt-hours. The second to fifth column each corresponds to VEPFlex with supplementary vehicles on 105 days, 10 days, 4 days and VEP in Fig. 5a. The sixth to ninth column each corresponds to VEPFlex with supplementary vehicles on 105 days, 10 days, 4 days and VEP in Fig. 5b.

Source Data Fig. 6

The first column is the fraction of unelectrified Seattle vehicle-days for each date in Fig. 6a. The second column is the fraction of unelectrified Seattle vehicle-days for each holiday period in Fig. 6b. The third column is the fraction of unelectrified Seattle vehicle-days for each duration in Fig. 6c.

Source Data Fig. 7

The first column is the range of battery capacities plotted in kilowatt-hours. The second to fourth column correspond to DAP when home, work and fast charging are available on all highway trips; home and work charging are available; and home charging is available in Fig. 7a. The fifth column is raw data of US vehicle-day energy requirements used to plot the US distribution in Fig. 7b. The sixth column is raw data of Seattle vehicle-day energy requirements used to plot the Seattle distribution in Fig. 7b.

Source Data Fig. 8

The first, third, fifth, seventh column are VEP(Flex) with supplementary vehicles on 105 days, 10 days, 1 day and 0 days with a 40 kWh BEV under the four charging availability scenarios from top to bottom in the figure. The other columns are VEP(Flex) with a 100 kWh BEV.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wei, W., Ramakrishnan, S., Needell, Z.A. et al. Personal vehicle electrification and charging solutions for high-energy days. Nat Energy 6, 105–114 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-020-00752-y

Download citation

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing