The but also car manufacturers are reluctant

The effect of incentives for development of charging/refueling stations
is, especifically more important for
FCVs. While BEVs and PHEVs can be charged at cherging points installed at
households, FCVs should be especifically charges at HRS which are of
considerably more expensive than a single charging point. The balance of
icnentivizng FCV purchase and incentivizing HRS development is a chicken and
egg problem. On one hand, if there are not enough FCVs to use a HRS, the
profitability of investing on a HRS in
the initial stages carries a high risk because the investment is going to
support a limited number of FCVs (meaning a limited number of FCVs will be fueled
through that station, and thus the
revenue will also be limited). However, with the
increase in the number of FCVs, the risk for investment in HRS will
decrease in the long-term.

On the other hand, if there are not enough HRSs in a
region, not only people can consider buying a FCV, but also car manufacturers
are reluctant to sell their vehicles there as the vehicle doesn’t have enough
infrastrcutre to be refuled. This problem doesn’t apply to BEVs and PHEVs at this scale as BEV or PHEV owners can
install charging points at their garages at a price of about 1200 USD.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

In the long-term, this challenge would not be an
issue as the cost of hydrogen refueling infrastructure is only 5% of TCO 6. As a result, it can be concluded that at
the early stages of development, the contribution of governments and local
authorities for the development of HRS and decreasing the profitability risk
from the investment on them is crucial.

Why more BEVs than FCVs

Table
28  shows BEV, PHEV, and FCV stock in
countries/jurisdictions compared in this work. As it can be seen, in 2016/2017 the number of BEVs and
PHEVs are considerably higher than the number of FCVs in all
countries/jurisdictions considered.         

Table 28. Comparison of number of BEVs, PHEVs, and
FCVs 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)

 

Numerous
reasons contribute to the higher number of BEVs and PHEVs compared to FCVs. There are more models of BEVs and PHEVs available
for purchase. Governments have longer incentivized the purchase of BEVs and PHEVs compared to FCVs. BEVs and PHEVs also have generally lower prices compared to
FCVs. As there are more subsidies for BEV purchases all over the world compared
to FCVs, BEV manufacturers have bigger markets for mass production of their
vehicles. BEVs and PHEVs also have better consumer acceptability compared to
FCV because of the concerns about the hydrogen stored in a FCV. BEVs and PHEVs also don’t need extensive
refueling infrastructure at the first stages of deployment like FCVs and BEV
and PHEV owners can charge their vehicles at home.

Out of the ten
countries/jurisdictions investigated in this work, six of them provide higher
purchase subsidy for FCVs compared to BEVs and PHEVs. These countries and
jurisdictions are Japan, South Korea,
China, Denmark, Norway, and California. In four of the countries/jurisdictions
investigated in this work, purchase subsidies are allocated based on GHG a
vehicle emits. Since BEVs and FCVs emit no GHG emission while being driven,
they receive the same amount of purchase subsidy in the UK, Germany, France,
and Sweden. 

Based on the
purchase subsidy values, it seems that generally
European countries (except for Scandinavian countries Denmark and Norway) tend
to support EVs based on their emissions. Using this method, BEVs and FCVs will
receive the same purchase subsidies. 
However, Denmark and Norway alongside the state of California and all three eastern Asia countries considered
in this work provide higher purchase subsidies for FCVs compared to purchase
subsidies for BEVs.

Although some 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 is
greatly in favor of BEVs and against FCVs. This
is because of the price difference between BEVs and FCVs. Table
29
shows the price of selected electric vehicles. As
it can be seen in the table, BEVs are comparable to PHEVs while FCVs are
generally more expensive than both BEVs and PHEVs (All three types of vehicles
include a price range, for instance, EVs may range from 30,000 to 41000 USD while
PHEVs may range from

33,000 to 48,000 US$) while they provide options such
as long driving ranges and can be used for long-distance travels (with the
condition of availability of enough HRSs).

Table 29. Price of selected EVs (FCV, BEV, and PHEV)