vehicles. For instance, Zubaryeva et al. 14stated that availability of a proper numberof charging infrastructure has a significant effect on widespread deployment ofelectric vehicles in Europe. Sierzchula et al.
15 also stated thatadding a charging structure per 100,000 residents has twice the impact on theEV market share in a country than USD 1,000 financial incentives for consumers.The effect of incentives for development of charging/refueling stationsis specifically more important for FCVs.While BEVs and PHEVs can be charged at charging points installed at households,FCVs should be charged at HRSs which are of considerably more expensive than a singlecharging point. The balance of incentivizing FCV purchase and incentivizing HRSdevelopment is a chicken and egg problem. On one hand, if there are not enoughFCVs to use a HRS, the profitability of investing on a HRS in the initial stages carries ahigh risk because the investment is going to support a limited number of FCVs (meaning a limited number of FCVs will be fueled through thatstation), and thus the revenue will also be limited. However, with theincrease in the number of FCVs, the risk for investment in HRSs willdecrease in the long-term. On the other hand, if there are not enough HRSs in aregion, not only people can consider buying a FCV, but also car manufacturersare reluctant to sell their vehicles in that region as there are not enough infrastructureto support the refueling of the vehicle. This problem doesn’t apply to BEVs and PHEVs at this scale as BEV, or PHEV owners can install charging pointsat their garages at a price of about USD 1200 and charge their vehicles intheir houses.
In the long-term, this challenge would not be anissue as the cost of hydrogen refueling infrastructure is only 5% of Total Costof Ownership (TCO) of a FCV 6. As a result, it can be concluded that at the early stages ofdevelopment, the contribution of governments and local authorities for thedevelopment of HRS and decreasing the profitability risk from the investment onthem is crucial. Table28 shows BEV, PHEV, and FCV stock incountries/jurisdictions compared in this work.
As it can be seen, in 2016/2017 the number of BEVs andPHEVs are considerably higher than the number of FCVs in allcountries/jurisdictions considered. Table 28. Comparison of number of BEVs, PHEVs, andFCVs in different countries/jurisdictions Country BEV stock PHEV stock FCV stock Japan 86,390 (2016) 64,860 (2016) 1800 (March 2017) South Korea 10,770 (2016) 440 (2016) 100 (2016) China 483,190 (2016) 165,580 (2016) 60 (March 2017) Germany 40,920 (2016) 31,810 (2016) 477 (2017) France 66,970 (2016) 17,030 (2016) 130 (November 2016) United Kingdom 31,460 (2016) 54,960 (2016) 28 (Toyota Mirais sold until March 2017) Norway 98,880 (2016) 34,380 (2016) 80 (October 2017) Denmark 8100 (BEVs and PHEVs) 68 (September 2017) Sweden 8030(2016) 21,290 (2016) 8 (May 2016) California 139,600 (2016) 128,863 (2016) 1600 (April 2017) Numerousreasons contribute to the higher number of BEVs and PHEVs compared to the numberof FCVs. There are more models of BEVs andPHEVs available for purchase compared to commercially available models of FCVs.Governments have longer incentivized the purchaseof BEVs and PHEVs compared to FCVs. BEVs and PHEVs also have generally lowerprices compared to FCVs.
As there are more subsidies for BEV purchases all overthe world compared to FCVs, BEV manufacturers have bigger markets for massproduction of their vehicles. BEVs and PHEVs also have better consumeracceptability compared to FCV because of the concerns about the safety ofhydrogen storage in a FCV. BEVs and PHEVsalso don’t need extensive refueling infrastructure at the first stages ofdeployment like FCVs and BEV and PHEV owners can charge their vehicles at home.Anotherinteresting observation regarding the available data on the stock of differentEVs is that the share of PHEVs has increased in all reviewed countries/jurisdictionsin the years investigated while the share of BEVs in the stock is decreasing. WhilePHEV purchases receive purchase subsidies, they also don’t have the problem ofrange anxiety or long duration of charging.
This issue has led to the interestof customer for using PHEVs.Based on the purchase subsidy values, it seemsthat generally European countries (exceptfor Scandinavian countries of Denmark and Norway) tend to support EVs based ontheir emissions. Using this method, BEVs and FCVs will receive the samepurchase subsidies.
However, Denmark andNorway alongside the state of Californiaand all three eastern Asia countries considered in this work provide higherpurchase subsidies for FCVs compared to purchase subsidies for BEVs. Althoughsome researchers such as Zhang et al. 10 believe that designing incentives based on the amount of CO2 emissions is a good approach, it should be noted that this method of incentivizing isgreatly biased toward BEVs and against FCVs. Onereason for this bias is the price difference between BEVs and FCVs. Table 29 shows the price of selected commercially available BEVs, PHEVs, andFCVs.
As it can be seen in the table, BEVs arecomparable to PHEVs while FCVs are generally more expensive than both BEVs andPHEVs (All three types of vehicles include a price range, forinstance, EVs may range from USD 30,000 to USD 41000 while PHEVs may range fromUSD 33,000 to USD 48,000). Another reason for the bias of allocating purchasesubsidies based on CO2 emissions against FCVs is the deficit of HRSs in a lot ofregions. While there are not enough HRSs in a region to refuel FCVs, there willbe a higher tendency toward buying BEVs if the purchase