Advertisement

What Can Driving Patterns Reveal About the Suitability of PEVs in Sweden? Analysis and Policy Implications

  • Frances SpreiEmail author
Chapter
  • 28 Downloads
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mobility book series (LNMOB)

Abstract

Sweden has ambitious climate goals. For the transport sector the goals is a 70% reduction of emissions from domestic transport by 2030 relative to 2010 levels. Even if Sweden has not set any specific goals for PEVs, electrification of the transport sector is one of the major strategies to achieve the climate goals. In this chapter we analyze the suitability of PEVs with a special emphasis on BEVs, in Sweden. The main approach has been to study driving patterns and how these relate to the limited range of a BEV. Special emphasis has been set on two-car households since these are potential early adopters. Data on driving patterns is complemented with interviews of households that have trialed a BEV for at least 3 months. We find that the longer driving distances in Sweden might make it more challenging for BEVs to be adopted. On the plus side the economic conditions in Sweden with low electricity prices, higher fuel taxes and subsidies make the BEV economically viable from a TCO perspective. The combination of these factors might explain the relatively high shares of sales of PEVs in Sweden (5.3% sales share in 2017) and why these are dominated by PHEVs. The chapter also looks at the lessons learned from the failed introduction of flex-fuel vehicles and finds that is important to maintain the economic advantages of PEVs through, e.g., higher fuel taxes and that PEVs should have a relative advantage for the user that goes beyond their environmental performance.

Keywords

Driving patterns Two-car households Flex-fuel vehicles Climate policy 

References

  1. Azar, C., & Sandén, B. A. (2011). The elusive quest for technology-neutral policies. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 135–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Circle, Power (2018). Laddbara bilar i Sverige—oktober 2018, 2018-11-12.Google Scholar
  3. Council, Puget Sound Regional (2008). Traffic choices study, (Technical report).Google Scholar
  4. Granström, R., et al. (2017). Användarnas beteende och syn på laddbara bilar, Rapport från projketet SELF-I. TRUM-Rapport, 1.Google Scholar
  5. Greene, D. L., et al. (2005). Feebates, rebates and gas-guzzler taxes: A study of incentives for increased fuel economy. Energy Policy, 33(6), 757–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jackson, M. (2007). Ethanol Biofuels Implementation Plan. (CEC-ARB Workshop on Developing a State Plan to Increase the Use of Alternative Transportation Fuels).Google Scholar
  7. Jakobsson, N. (2016). On battery electric vehicles: Driving patterns, multi-car households and infrastructure. Technical report/Department of Energy and Environment, (2016: 1).Google Scholar
  8. Jakobsson, N., Karlsson, S., Sprei, F. (2016a). How are driving patterns adjusted to the use of a battery electric vehicle in two-car households. Electric Vehicle Symposium 29 (Montreal).Google Scholar
  9. Jakobsson, N., et al. (2016b). Are multi-car households better suited for battery electric vehicles?—Driving patterns and economics in Sweden and Germany. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 65, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jakobsson, N., Karlsson, S., Sprei, F. (2018). How do users adapt to a battery electric vehicle in a two-car household?. Under Review.Google Scholar
  11. Karlsson, S. (2013). The Swedish car movement data project. PRT Report, (2013: 1).Google Scholar
  12. Karlsson, S. (2017). What are the value and implications of two-car households for the electric car? Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 81, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Karlsson, S., Jakobsson, N., & Sprei, F. (2017). The variation of BEV energy use and range wit climate and driving behaviour in real driving in Sweden. Geneva: EEVC, European Electric Vehicle Congress.Google Scholar
  14. Kullingsjo, L. H., Karlsson, S. (2013). GPS measurement of Swedish car movements for assessment of possible electrification. EVS27 Symposium, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
  15. Langbroek, J. H., Franklin, J. P., Susilo, Y. O. (2017a). Change towards electric vehicle use in Greater Stockholm.Google Scholar
  16. Langbroek, J. H. M., Franklin, J. P., & Susilo, Y. O. (2017b). Electric vehicle users and their travel patterns in Greater Stockholm. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 52, 98–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Langbroek, J. H., Franklin, J. P., & Susilo, Y. O. (2016). The effect of policy incentives on electric vehicle adoption. Energy Policy, 94, 94–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. MOP, Mobilitätspanel (2010). Deutschland 1994–2010, Technical report, Project conducted by the Institute for Transport Studies at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT). Available at: www.clearingstelleverkehr.de.
  19. Nykvist, B., Sprei, F., & Nilsson, M. (2019). Assessing the progress toward lower priced long range battery electric vehicles. Energy Policy, 124, 144–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Plötz, P., Jakobsson, N., & Sprei, F. (2017). On the distribution of individual daily driving distances. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 101, 213–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rezvani, Z., Jansson, J., Bengtsson, M. (2017). Consumer motivations for sustainable consumption: The interaction of gain, normative and hedonic motivations on electric vehicle adoption. Business Strategy and the Environment.Google Scholar
  22. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  23. Roosen, J., Marneffe, W., & Vereeck, L. (2015). A review of comparative vehicle cost analysis. Transport Reviews, 35(6), 720–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Smith, R., et al. (2011). Characterization of urban commuter driving profiles to optimize battery size in light-duty plug-in electric vehicles. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 16(3), 218–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sprei, F. (2018). Discontinued diffusion of alternative-fueled vehicles—The case of flex-fuel vehicles in Sweden. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 12(1), 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sprei, F., & Wickelgren, M. (2011). Requirements for change in new car buying practices—Observations from Sweden. Energy Efficiency, 4(2), 193–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sweden, Government Offices of (2018a). The climate policy framework. 28-11-2018.Google Scholar
  28. Sweden, Government Offices of (2018b). As of today, Sweden has a new Climate Act!. 2018-11-28.Google Scholar
  29. Trafikanalys (2015). Peak car is sikte? Statistik och analys över Sveriges personsbilsflotta och dess användning’, (PM 2015: 14; Stockholm: Trafikanalys).Google Scholar
  30. Transportstyrelsen (2018a). Frågor och svar om supermiljöbilspremie. 11-29-2018.Google Scholar
  31. Transpoststyrelsen (2018b). 2018-06-29.Google Scholar
  32. Turrentine, T. S., & Kurani, K. S. (2007). Car buyers and fuel economy? Energy Policy, 35(2), 1213–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wikström, M., Hansson, L., & Alvfors, P. (2014). Socio-technical experiences from electric vehicle utilisation in commercial fleets. Applied Energy, 123, 82–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chalmers University of TechnologyGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations