Feasibility Study

of the Introduction of Electric Vehicles in Samsø

EV

Alexandre Canet

Peter Githii

Thibault Guillamet

Stefanos Konstas

Fanni Sá�án

Aalborg University, June 2011

M.SC. (ENG) SUSTAINABLE ENERGY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

SUPERVISOR: POUL ALBERG ØSTERGAARD

1

Aalborg University

Department of Development and Planning

Fibigerstræde 13.

9220 Aalborg Øst

http://www.plan.aau.dk

Title of Project:

Feasibility Study of the Introduction of

Electric Vehicles in Samsø

Project Period:

11/02/2011 – 01/06/2011

Project Group:

Group 71

Members:

Alexandre Canet

Peter Njemga Githii

Thibault Guillamet

Stefanos Konstas

Fanni Sáfián

Supervisor:

Poul Alberg Østergaard

Pages: 78

Number of copies: 7

The content of the report is free for everyone

but publishing must only be done with the

author‟s permission.

Abstract

This project is conducted as part of the

larger project called Samsø 2.0, focusing

on changing the transportation sector on

the island, trying to identify and promote a

sustainable solution. Due to the large

excess electricity produced by the wind

turbines, a fitting solution for the island‟s private vehicles can be electric vehicles

(EVs).

The aim of this project is to examine how

electric vehicles can be implemented in

Samsø, in a way to promote changes

towards a 100 per cent self-sufficient

island. The project examines the different

available technologies of electric vehicles

through a technical analysis; an economic

screening comparing electric and

conventional vehicle costs; and finally a

socio-economic part including different

ownership models with economic

considerations and details about the

driving habits and expectations from

Samsø inhabitants. From these analyses, it

is shown that Battery Electric Vehicles

(BEVs) are the most suitable plug-in EVs

for the island and are also economically

viable. However, the different driving

habits require several ownership solutions,

therefore private ownership, leasing and

car sharing are recommended in the case

of Samsø.

All these different results lead to suggest

ideas of implementing EVs in Samsø. In

relation to the island‟s new energy plan, a demonstration project is presented with a

focus of showing the reliability of the

vehicles. Finally, some ideas to expand the

number of EVs and to lower their costs are

also considered.

End date: 31/05/2011

2

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

A/S Aktieselskab (Stock-based

corporation)

A++ Abstraction plus reference plus

synthesis

AC Alternative Current

BEV Battery Electric Vehicle

CD Charge Depleting

CH4 Methane

CO2 Carbon Dioxide

CS Charge Sustaining

CSO Car Sharing Organization

DC Direct Current

EU European Union

EV Electric Vehicle

GHG GreenHouse Gas

ICE Internal Combustion Engine

IPCC Internation Planning on Climate

Change

LEAP Long-range Energy Alternatives

Planning systems

Li-ion Lithium-ion

NiCD Nickel-Cadmium

NiMH Nickel Metal Hybride

NOx Nitrogen oxide

NPV Net Present Value

O&M Operation and Maintenance

PEV Plug-in Electric Vehicle

PHEV Plug-in Electric Vehicle

PV Photovoltaics

RE Renewable Energy

ReEV Range Extended Electric Vehicle

SOC State Of Charge

TSO Transmission System Operator

USA United States of America

V2G Vehicles To Grid

UNITS

€ Euro

$ U.S. Dollar

DKK Danish Krone

G Giga

h hour

j joule k kilo

L litre

M Mega

m metre V Volts W Watt Wh Watt hour

T Tera

3

Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................... 1

Preface ................................................................................................................ 6

1. Introduction ................................................................................................... 7

1.1. Problem Formulation .............................................................................. 12

1.2. Report Structure .................................................................................... 14

2. Methodology ................................................................................................ 15

2.1. The project inside an institutional framework ........................................... 15

2.2. The analysis process in the project .......................................................... 16

2.2.1. Technical analysis ............................................................................ 16

2.2.2. Cost comparison between electric and conventional vehicles .............. 16

2.2.3. Socio-economic aspects .................................................................... 16

2.3. Interview and survey methods ................................................................ 17

2.4. Tools ..................................................................................................... 18

2.4.1. Excel ............................................................................................... 18

2.4.2. LEAP ............................................................................................... 19

3. Technical Feasibility...................................................................................... 20

3.1. Plug-in Electric Vehicles .......................................................................... 20

3.2. Description of the PEVs technologies ....................................................... 21

3.2.1. BEV ................................................................................................. 21

3.2.2. PHEV ............................................................................................... 22

3.2.3. State of charge and driving range ..................................................... 22

3.2.4. Comparison between BEV and PHEV ................................................. 23

3.3. Electric Vehicle connected to Grid (V2G) .................................................. 24

3.4. Advantages and disadvantages of V2G with a focus on Samsø .................. 24

3.4.1. Battery lifespan of V2G and EV ......................................................... 26

4

3.5. Electricity import-export analysis ............................................................. 30

4. Costs comparison of electric and conventional vehicles ................................... 35

4.1.1. Scenario 1 – EV ............................................................................... 37

4.1.2. Scenario 2 – Conventional scenario ................................................... 37

4.1.3. Result and Comparison ..................................................................... 38

5. Socio-economic analysis on ownership models for EVs regarding local

requirements ..................................................................................................... 40

5.1. Ownership options for electric vehicles .................................................... 40

5.1.1. Private ownership ............................................................................ 40

5.1.2. Mixed ownership .............................................................................. 41

5.1.3. Leasing ........................................................................................... 41

5.1.4. Car sharing ...................................................................................... 41

5.2. Comparison of current costs of the ownership models .............................. 45

5.3. Local opinions and requirements from Samsø .......................................... 50

5.3.1. Results of the interviews .................................................................. 50

5.3.2. Main results of the survey................................................................. 51

5.4. Ownership models and their applications in Samsø ................................... 53

6. Implementation of EVs in Samsø ................................................................... 56

6.1. Demonstration project for EV technology ................................................. 56

6.2. Expansion of the fleet ............................................................................. 58

6.2.1. Charging infrastructure ..................................................................... 58

6.2.2. Wind shares connected to EVs .......................................................... 61

6.2.3. Market regulations to lower electricity prices in charging stations ........ 65

6.3. Environmental consequences .................................................................. 67

7. Conclusion ................................................................................................... 70

7.1. Perspectives .......................................................................................... 71

Bibliography ....................................................................................................... 74

5

6

Preface

This project was written during the period of February 2011 to June 2011 as the

main project of the 2nd semester of the Master Programme in Sustainable Energy

Planning and Management at Aalborg University.

The authors would like to thank Poul Alberg Østergaard for providing valuable help

during the whole research process as supervisor; Søren Hermansen for helping in

the concept idea of this project in relation to the broader Samsø 2.0 project; the co-

workers from Samsø Energy Academy for their time and help: Consultant Lene

Skafte Bestman, Manager Søren Steensgaard and Technology Advisor Bernd Garber.

Thanks to Jens Erik Printzen from Elderly Care, Brian Kjaer for demonstrating his

electric vehicle and last but not least, Lars Fomsgaard for hosting the authors during

the study trip in Samsø.

As reference technique, the Chicago method is used throughout the report, thus,

inside the text, the sources are presented as: author with year of publication. The

complete list of the references is found at the end of the report.

7

1. Introduction

In 1997, the Danish Ministry of Energy announced a competition for planning a 100

per cent renewable energy project at a given local area or islands funded by the

Danish Energy Authority. The islands competing were Læsø, Samsø, Ærø and Møn as

well as the peninsula Thyholm. The project aimed to emphasize the potential of

resources and to make the transition towards renewable energy according to the

technology and the organisational structure required. The focus point of the

competition was on low energy consumption regarding different sectors such as

heating, electricity and transportation sectors. The project should also involve the

local people (Jørgensen 2007). Samsø won the competition in the same year.

Samsø is a small island located in the centre of Denmark (Figure 1) with around

4,000 inhabitants (Statistics Denmark 2011) whereby the proposed plans were seen

to have the most likelihood of succeeding compared to the other areas.

Figure 1: Samsø’s location in Denmark

Before the project, the island‟s electricity demand was entirely supplied by the mainland through undersea cables which connect the island and Jutland. In the

project, it was decided to make the island completely independent in electricity

8

supply from the mainland. Therefore, the annual electricity consumption of Samsø

had to be produced locally.

In the same way as most areas along the Danish coast, the wind has a high

renewable energy potential in Samsø. Hence, it was decided that the majority of the

electricity production would come from wind turbines. In three different clusters of

the island, eleven land-based wind turbines, each one of 1 MW capacity, were built.

When the project was made in 1997, the transportation alternative technologies

were not advanced enough to provide a reliable way to change the conventional

transport means into a renewable energy based. Therefore, the project planned to

produce excess renewable electricity to offset the CO2 emissions of transportation.

This surplus was planned to be produced by offshore wind turbines and exported to

the mainland, until a way to use it locally is found, as for instance replacing the fossil

fuelled units by ones using electricity. A capacity of 23 MW was calculated for this

purpose. Therefore, ten off-shore wind turbines, each one of 2.3 MW capacity, have

been built in 2002 (Jørgensen 2007). Figure 2 presents the locations of the wind

farms in Samsø.

Figure 2: Map of Samsø including wind farms, the main city and ferry terminals adapted from (EnergiNET 2011)

9

Photovoltaic cells were also considered in the first plan, but the costs per kilowatt-

hour of production have discouraged the investors and the people in Samsø. Finally,

only a few houses and the Samsø Energy Academy have 100 m² of PV cells installed

on their roof. The small potential of solar power in Denmark and the low feed-in

tariffs fixed by the Danish government can also explain the difficulties of

implementing PV cells all around Denmark (Jørgensen 2007).

Finally, the plan considered savings in electricity as well and tried to change the

behaviour of the people. The first step towards energy saving was by replacing the

electric boilers in the houses that cannot be linked to the district heating, by other

means of heating, such as solar collectors, individual biomass boilers or heat-pumps.

Just a few have really been replaced, especially because of the opposition of the

elder people who do not want to build new units in their houses (Jørgensen 2007).

Another step of the sustainable program was promotion campaigns to encourage

people to use A++ appliances as lights bulbs, freezers, etc., but there was no

noticeable change because of the increasing number of products running on

electricity (Jørgensen 2007).

Regarding the above described situation, the following question appears:

Can Samsø be considered sustainable while a part of the electricity production is just an offset to the CO

2 emission from transportation and electricity import,

which can be fossil-based sources?

That‟s the question Samsø‟s Energy Academy is facing and trying to solve in the new project. The potential solution is to use the locally produced energy for the

transportation sector and thus, to become more independent from the fuel

importation and to lower the environmental impacts. This is the starting point of this

project.

The demand of electricity, heating and transport as well as the electricity production

and the CO2 emission in 2009 in Samsø is presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Production and demand of energy and the total CO2 emission in 2009 in Samsø (Tambjerg 2009)

Transport sector

[GWh]

Electricity demand

[GWh]

Heating demand

[TJ]

Electricity production

[GWh]

CO2 emission [1,000

tons]

75.3 27.8 153.6 108.61 25.29

By studying data (Tambjerg 2009) and report (Jørgensen 2007) about Samsø energy

evolution during the last decade, it appears that incentives and improvements of

energy management can have a great impact on the transportation sector. On one

hand, few projects described later in the introduction, had been conducted in the

past decade to decrease these emissions, but they failed or remained undeveloped.

On the other hand, these projects show the willingness of the inhabitants to

10

participate in projects allowing a better quality of life, through the development of

the local economy, as it was confirmed by a farmer who owns a wind turbine in

Samsø (Tranberg 2011). It shows the necessity to focus on some feasible solutions

which can be economically and environmentally profitable for the community in a

short term range. The transportation sector is responsible for slightly more than 78

per cent of the 25,290 tons of CO2 emission and is highly dependent on fossil fuels

(Tambjerg 2009). Its energy consumption is 40 per cent of the island‟s total energy consumption – more than 2.3 times bigger than the electricity demand of Samsø in

terms of energy amount, as seen in Table 1, and distributes as presented in Figure 3.

This figure shows that the most consuming units of fossil fuels are the ships due to

the ferry traffic and the cars.

Figure 3: Distribution of the energy consumed by the transportation sector in 2009 in Samsø (Tambjerg 2009)

Figure 4 shows the evolution of the consumption in the transportation sector during

the last decade. The consumption has globally increased between 1997 and 2009.

However, it reaches its minimum in 1999 with 49.4 GWh and is nowadays around 68

GWh, if flights are not considered (Tambjerg 2009). In details, the decrease of the

ferries‟ consumption can be noticed after 2005, whereas a slight increase of the vehicles‟ consumption is observed since 2003, despite improvements of the engines efficiency and the decrease of Samsø‟s population.

25%

30% 13%

21%

11%

Private vehicles [GWh]

Ferries [GWh]

Tractors [GWh]

Trucks / trailers /

construction machinery

[GWh]

Others [GWh]

11

Figure 4: Evolution of the energy consumption in the transport sector between 1997 and 2009 in Samsø

(Tambjerg 2009)

The analysis of these figures emphasizes the large impact of the ferries in the energy

consumption. However, by crossing the facts and the objectives, it appears that

inside the transportation sector, focusing on private cars would have the best

outcome. In fact the purpose of this project has to be close to the spirit of Samsø;

trying to involve local people in the project in order to improve the quality of their

life.

In 2011, the total number of private vehicles was 1,584, and has remained quite

constant since 2007 (Statistics Denmark 2011). In the original master plan of Samsø

project in 1997, they targeted several areas to improve the situation of

transportation regarding the energy consumption. The first one was to propose an

alternative choice to the use of private vehicles; a feasibility study had been carried

out about flexible schedules and smaller buses called Island bus route. It could save

30,000 DKK/year to the municipality, but it was finally rejected in 2007. More

successful and promising was the rapeseed oil demonstration project in 2003. Three

active farmers were producing rapeseed oil for tractors and gained feed for animals

at the same time. Two of them were still continuing it in 2007. In the same period,

the municipality and other institutions decided to make a large-scale project from it,

but it never started. The project could have been successful once there would be no

energy taxation on rapeseed oil – which is still the same today as the diesel fuel

taxation (Jørgensen 2007). The most important project related to the present report

was about introducing EVs on the island. Through the planning process in 1997, it

was assumed that 10 per cent of the cars in Samsø could be converted to EVs

between 1997 and 2007, furthermore they even investigated the feasibility of 50 per

cent for a longer time scale. Regarding the optimism about EVs, the fact that there

are short trips in the island and the required amount of excess electricity was

available – they would need 5.8 TJ annually and they had 7.3 TJ exported electricity

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

En

erg

y [

GW

h]

Years

Total [GWh] Private vehicles [GWh] Ferries [GWh]

12

in 2005 (Jørgensen 2007) – this plan seemed realistic. But at the end, it did not

reach the aims of the project; only four EVs were leased to service local pensioners

by Samsø municipality in 1999, but at the end of the contract they were returned

because of battery problems and inadequate target group for this project (Jørgensen

2007).

In a broader perspective, the failure of this project could have been due to other

reasons as well, such as the policy. Currently, it seems that the market conditions

are much more mature to create a field for EVs. For this reason, in the past three

years significant changes have been done; Denmark has already started promoting

EVs by providing tax incentives and by making different environmental friendly

projects regarding transportation. In addition, under the Energy Policy of Denmark in

February 2008, Danish Energy Agency started promoting EVs with 35 MDKK (4.6 M€) in subsidies during the period of 2008-2012 (Shankar 2010), as well as the incentive

under the EU state aid rules of the European Commission, precisely 15 MDKK

(approximately 2 M€) of funding (EurActiv.com 2011).

Considering the described background of Samsø and policy framework in Denmark, it

was decided that in relation to the objectives of the island about being more

independent from fossil fuels and utilizing the local resources, the development of

EVs in Samsø appears to be a proper problematic to solve. Hence, it has been

decided to deal with the implementation of EVs in this project and in the end, after

analysing all the relevant aspects regarding EVs, to propose a demonstration project

that will present this technology to the people.

1.1. Problem Formulation

As described in the first part of the introduction, the solution should focus on

creating a sustainable transportation system in Samsø. As a starting point and in

order to assess the research process of the project, the following questions need to

be answered, regarding the issues defined above about the transportation sector: for

who and why it is a problem and what should be done about it.

1. For who is it a problem for?

It is a problem for the local people of Samsø, who are interested in a more

sustainable transportation; for the decision makers of Samsø and ultimately of

Denmark who want to decrease the overall greenhouse gas emissions of the island

and have to manage the problems generated, especially dependency on foreign

countries and foreign resources.

13

2. Why is it a problem?

There are several reasons. It is clear that Samsø cannot be a sustainable island if the

trend of the growing fossil fuel consumption continues. This is also a financial

problem for the local people, for the decision makers in Samsø and in Denmark as

well, since the gasoline and diesel prices are getting higher and will probably

continue to do so in the future. Furthermore, the island cannot reach self-sufficiency,

resulting further dependency on imported fuel from the mainland. Finally, the

increasing CO2-emissions have unlimited geographic range of enhancing climate

change, which is also a problem from a global point of view.

3. What should be done about it?

Alternatives should be analysed to see how the demand of the transportation sector

can be reduced and how its supply can be changed to become less polluting and

probably less expensive from a consumer‟s point of view. There are several potential solutions from renewable sources, such as biofuels, to clean electricity generated for

example by wind turbines. For this project, EVs are chosen as the main potential

option for changes in the private fleet of Samsø‟s vehicles. Thus, the investigation is focused on the private fleet of vehicles in Samsø, the EVs as a possible good

alternative and the possibilities to meet the goals: to use the excess electricity and to

decrease the fossil fuel dependence.

Hence, the purpose of this project is connected to the following research question:

How can electric vehicles be implemented in an economically beneficial way in Samsø, promoting the creation of a real sustainable island?

14

1.2. Report Structure

A simple overview of the project is presented in Figure 5. It shows the general

project structure specified chapter-by chapter. The approach is also detailed chapter-

by-chapter in order to have a better understanding of the development of this

project.

Figure 5: Report structure

15

2. Methodology

This chapter describes the methodological approach of the work; the different

analyses in relation to the focus of the project, the interview methods and the

tools used in order to conduct the research process. Moreover, it is also a first

step to understand why planning – with consideration of the institutional and

social aspects – is necessary in the energy sector.

2.1. The project inside an institutional framework

Inside the institutional framework the project focuses on three aspects of the

implementation of EVs which are, as seen in Figure 6:

i. Institutional and market conditions

ii. Technical system scenario

iii. Energy development goals

Figure 6: Institutional Framework for Energy Planning adapted from Hvelplund 2001

First of all, the institutional and market conditions seem to be the most

important aspect for this project, due to the different policies and the

difficulties of implementing a large project such as the introduction of EVs. In

this part, it should be mentioned that the different kinds of ownerships are

also very important as it is up to the local people to choose the most suitable

way according to their needs. Therefore, the focus is on dealing with the

ownership options (Chapter 5) through the existing market conditions and

economic considerations.

At this point the technical system scenario box of Figure 6 comes next. In the

technical analysis part (Chapter 3) the available technologies are presented

and discussed. Last but not least, the focus on the energy development goals

(Figure 6) is to provide an alternative to the transportation sector to make it

more sustainable and less costly to the consumers.

16

2.2. The analysis process in the project

Planning theory is combined with economic theory in order to be able to

include different factors regarding the implementation of EVs in Samsø‟s transportation system. Therefore, throughout the project the following

analyses are presented with their limitations.

2.2.1. Technical analysis

The technical analysis focuses on the investigation of the different

technologies available. All the analyses are using existing, state-of-the art

technologies, which are already in the market, therefore available for

purchase in Denmark. The purpose is to find which technology is the most

applicable for implementation in Samsø in terms of battery lifespan and

driving range. The technologies are also considered in function with the

behaviour of Samsø‟s inhabitants and meeting the environmental goals.

Furthermore, the analysis investigates the need for vehicles connected-to-the-

grid technology in Samsø. The final analysis has been done using an Excel

spread sheet because of the limitations of Energy Plan regarding the

requested results.

2.2.2. Cost comparison between electric and conventional

vehicles

The aim of this analysis is to have a cost comparison between electric and

conventional vehicles through a comparison presenting the cost per kilometre.

Using the current prices, related to purchasing and vehicle maintenance, is

taken into consideration including taxes and depreciation as well. The main

variables of this screening are the petrol and diesel prices as well as the

number of kilometres driven per year. Since they have important impacts on

the final results, a sensitivity analysis is conducted to identify the possible

impacts of variable changes in order to have an output for a large choice of

cases. This part provides no final result, it is considered as an input for

choosing different scenarios.

2.2.3. Socio-economic aspects

The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate which is the best ownership model

for EVs in Samsø. The different ownership models are examined considering

the possible social acceptance, payment method and its feasibility in Samsø.

Therefore, an economic comparison is conducted, including the current costs

and dealing with different timeframes and vehicle-use intensity. Furthermore,

17

the feedback from Samsø – interviews with the experts from the Energy

Academy and a survey of the local people – also plays an important role in

the evaluation. Due to this approach, the different actors are not defined,

neither their possible role in the system as investors, owners or customers are

investigated. Furthermore, the analysis deals mainly with practical matters

only and with the problem of how people will be able to finance and use EVs

in a proper model.

2.3. Interview and survey methods

During the research process there were different interviews and contacts

conducted, in order to generate data that would help in the different analyses

and also make it more realistic. In the beginning, there were some dialogues

with Søren Hermansen, the director of the Energy Academy, regarding the

focus of this project in relation to the broader Samsø 2.0 project. Later on,

there were some other telephone conversations with Bo Petersen, the director

of sales and marketing for ChoosEV A/S, to get the relevant prices. The car

rental company (Samsø biludlejning) was also contacted even though they

rejected the concept of this project. Finally, Post Danmark A/S provided

relevant information that helped in the demonstration project.

In order to collect qualitative data and feedback in relation to the introduction

of EVs in the island‟s society, it was decided to make a small trip to Samsø.

This visit was very helpful in conducting interviews with different actors, such

as people from the Energy Academy, the municipality and a local person

owning a small electric car. These face to face interviews took approximately

30-50 minutes each and were organised as semi-structured interviews, with

different focuses in the questions asked regarding the interviewee.

Sometimes follow up questions from the interviewers were asked to the

interviewees making the process even more flexible, generating additional

information to the related topic.

Precisely the following people were interviewed:

Bernd Garbers, Technology Advisor of Samsø Energy Academy

Lene Skafte Bestman, Consultant in Samsø Energy Academy

Søren Steensgaard, Manager in Samsø Energy Academy Brian Kjaer, local mechanical and owner of a small electric car Jens Erik Printzen, caretaker of the cars of the home care in

municipality Jørgen Tranberg, local farmer and owner of a wind turbine

18

The selection of the interviewees was relevant to the focus of the project

regarding EVs and their implementation in Samsø. The three people from the

Energy Academy are relevant to any energy project that is being conducted in

Samsø; Lene Skafte Bestman might work in the implementation of EVs in the

following years, setting already a target date to 2021 (ten years horizon) to

change half of the private vehicles‟ fleet and make it more sustainable (Bestman 2011). Brian Kjaer, who is already using a small EV, provided

explanation on how this type of car is used and basic thoughts about how

people see an EV in Samsø. Lastly, Jens Erik Printz was chosen as he was the

responsible person in the first implementation attempt of EVs back in 1999.

This particular interview provided information about why the first EVs project

failed and what should be changed this time during the implementation in

order to make a successful EV project. Finally, a short interview was done

with the local farmer Jørgen Tranberg, who is also an owner of one of the

wind turbines in the island.

Furthermore, for the implementation process of this project, information and

feedback from local people were necessary. For this purpose, a survey

translated to Danish with both open-ended and closed-ended questions was

dealt among 26 local people. It was important to find people that match the

criteria to fill the surveys such as people that own a car and people that drive

regularly. Therefore, parking lots were chosen to find the relevant target

people. Gathering the results led to gain access to information that is hard to

find, such as how and what people think about EVs, some of their everyday

needs, how they use their car now and distances travelled often. More

information about the interviews and the surveys can be found in part 5.3.

2.4. Tools

The main tools used in this project are the Excel spread sheet and the LEAP

model. Also some data were used, regarding the electricity import and export

of the Samsø‟s energy system, extracted from the mini project done for the lesson Technical Energy System Analysis which was based on an analysis with

the EnergyPLAN model.

2.4.1. Excel

The Excel software was used in all the analyses as a main tool to make

calculations and extract graphs that are presented in the report.

19

2.4.2. LEAP

LEAP, or else Long-range Energy Alternatives Planning system, is a software

used for energy policy analyses and climate change mitigation assessment. It

is a modelling tool that can be used in several different occasions; to track the

energy production and consumption of a place/country, to measure

greenhouse gas emissions in a system, to analyse an energy system and

design new policies. For this project, LEAP is only used to measure the

current CO2 emissions from the conventional vehicles. The first objective was

to calculate the evolution of CO2 emissions along years after the

implementation of EVs. However, it has been impossible to replace all the

written-off vehicles by the exact numbers of new ones every year. Hence, the

number of vehicles does not remain constant whereas it is supposed to be the

case.

Another idea at the beginning was to use LEAP to study the impacts of the

implementation of EVs on the import/export of Samsø. However, it was not

possible to figure out how to make this study without using an hourly model

including the wind distribution as well as the electricity production per hour.

Then it has been decided to use Excel for this analysis.

20

3. Technical Feasibility

The introduction of Plug-in Electric Vehicles (PEVs) in Samsø is considered to reduce

the CO2 emission using the excess electricity, generated by the wind turbines. In the

first part, the different technologies of PEVs currently existing are developed. The

analysis will establish which one of these technologies is the most suitable for the

Samsø project, regarding technical characteristics as the driving range or the battery

capacity. Then, Vehicles-to-Grid (V2Gs), which are able to send the power back to

the grid will also be introduced and an import-export electricity analysis will be

developed, to assess the impacts of the introduction of BEVs in the system.

3.1. Plug-in Electric Vehicles

PEVs are defined as vehicles that use an electric motor which is powered by an

external source of electricity (California 2010). As presented in Figure 7, PEVs are

usually divided into three different categories: Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs), Plug-

in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) and Range extended Electric Vehicles (ReEVs)

(Sisternes 2010). BEVs are vehicles that utilize only an electric battery to run the

motor. PHEVs are intermediates between BEVs and conventional hybrid vehicles. As

conventional hybrid vehicles, PHEVs utilize two motors, an internal combustion

engine (ICE) similar to the engine of conventional vehicles that runs on diesel or

gasoline and an electric motor using an electric battery. The difference between

PHEVs and conventional hybrid cars is that PHEVs have a plug to connect to the

electric grid. Hence the battery in PHEVs is bigger than the battery used for

conventional hybrid vehicles and can run the motor by itself, without using the ICE.

That way, the power consumption is noticeably less than conventional or hybrid cars.

The reason is the electric motor that increases the efficiency of the ICE and which

covers the peaks of power needed during the accelerations (Going electric 2011).

Finally, ReEVs are very close to PHEVs, in the way that they also have both an ICE

and an electric motor (Going electric 2011). ReEVs can be seen as an improvement

of the PHEVs, because when the battery is almost discharged (30 per cent for the

Chevrolet Volt), the small ICE (1.4L for the same model) is used to charge the

battery (Chevrolet 2011). When the ICE is empty, the battery can also be charged by

plug-in it, which is supposed to take only three hours for ReEVs (Chevrolet 2011).

21

Figure 7: Plug-in Electric Vehicles classification (Sisternes 2010)

In the following part, only the BEVs and PHEVs will be described. This is due to the

current development of ReEVs, which first example in Europe, the Opel Ampera, will

be commercialized only at the end of 2011 (Opel 2011). As the project is based on

current technologies whose implementation could possibly start soon, only BEVs and

PHEVs have been selected.

3.2. Description of the PEVs technologies

3.2.1. BEV

First, when the BEV is charging, the

electricity supplied by the grid goes

through the transformer and the

converter AC/DC where the voltage is

reduced from 220V AC and fed to the

battery. Second, turning to Figure 8, it

is shown that the power from the

batteries goes through the electric

motor, ultimately powering the wheels

for movement. Kinetic energy is

produced during braking, which is then

converted to electric energy and stored

in the batteries. This process is known

as the regenerative braking (Mazziotta

motors u.d.).

Figure 8: BEV concept (Burbank 2011)

Plug-in Electric Vehicles (PEVs)

Battery Electric

Vehicles (BEVs)

Plug-in Hybrid

Electric Vehicles (PHEV)

Range Extended

Electric Vehicles (ReEVs)

22

3.2.2. PHEV

PHEVs have an ICE and an electric

battery which runs an electric motor.

The size of the PHEV‟s battery is usually approximately the same as for

a BEV, because the battery needs to

be able to run the motor by itself.

Once the battery is empty, the ICE

starts to operate. This is the main

advantage of the technology as the

driving distance is no longer an issue

and people do not have to be afraid of

finding a place to charge their vehicle

while they are on a long journey. The

electric system is very close to the one

found in BEVs. The ICE is fuelled by

the gasoline tank and is linked to the

wheels to make them turn. The

regenerative braking still charges the

battery when only the ICE is

functioning.

Figure 9: PHEV diagram (Burbank 2011)

3.2.3. State of charge and driving range

In order to compare BEV and PHEV, the State Of Charge (SOC) has to be introduced.

The SOC is the measured energy content in the battery of BEVs and PHEVs. The SOC

changes over the time while the vehicle is running. The SOC varies differently

according to the vehicles, due to their different possibilities in charging modes. The

PHEVs are advantageous due to the ability of operating on different charging modes

that enables one to switch to any of them while driving. The PHEV can use energy

stored in the battery until the minimum energy is attained. This mode is called the

Charge-Depleting operating mode (CD). This mode displays a similar method of how

BEVs operate. Then, in the case of PHEVs the ICE is turned on. Moreover, the SOC

could either increase or decrease during driving and this charge are normally at

equilibrium. This is known as charge sustaining mode (CS) whereby the SOC could

be recharged through regenerative braking or the ICE.

23

Figure 10: Battery SOC according to the charge modes (JRC Technical notes 2009)

According to Figure 10 above, the SOC shows that the BEV (red curve) undergoes

the CD mode while running until the maximum distance is acquired. The battery will

therefore have to be re-charged or swapped with a fully charged one once it is

completely discharged. The PHEVs are able to travel up to a certain distance on the

CD mode and once the battery reaches its minimum discharge level, it switches to

the CS mode whereby the battery‟s SOC will be maintained at the same level.

The driving range for BEV is between 90 km for the Citroen C1 (Autoflotte 2011) and

160 km for the Nissan Leaf (Nissan 2011). For PHEV, the driving range depends on

which mode is used. In CD mode, the driving range, using only the electric motor, is

around only 40 km (JRC Technical notes 2009) while it is between 900 and 1,200 km

in CS mode (Ministry of Energy 2009), but the CS mode is not emission free.

3.2.4. Comparison between BEV and PHEV

Table 2: Characteristics between BEV and PHEV (Ahmad Pesaran 2007) (Ministry of Energy 2009) (JRC Technical notes 2009)

BEV PHEV

Driving range with a full tank [km] Limited, between 80 and 150 km Around 40 km + range of the ICE in

CD mode

900-1,200 km in CS mode (Ministry

of Energy 2009)

CD mode Yes Yes

CS mode No Yes

Suits urban driving Yes (because the electric motor is

turned off when the car is stopped)

Yes

Infrastructure required (charging

spots and EVs repairers)

Large Large

Battery capacity 20-40 kWh (Ahmad Pesaran 2007) 6-12 kWh (Ahmad Pesaran 2007)

24

As shown on Table 2, the main differences between BEV and PHEV are the driving

range and the battery capacity. As previously mentioned, the battery of PHEVs allows

extending significantly the driving range of the car; the consumption is around 3.9 L

per 100 kilometres with a Toyota Prius (Ministry of Energy 2009). This is very

suitable for long journeys. However, it is noticeable that the battery capacity is

smaller, thus the driving range using the electric motor in CD mode is around 40 km,

whereas it can reach 150 km for BEVs. The daily distance of a vehicle is usually

around 50 km in Denmark (Statistic Denmark 2011). Hence, the driving range of

PHEVs is not big enough to use the car only with electric motor. In case of the ICE

motor has to be turned on, the technology is not considered as non-polluting

anymore. Using PHEVs, the use of excess electricity is low, thus the first requirement

of the transition towards sustainable transportation is not achieved. Considering

these facts, there is no real potential for PHEVs in Samsø. Therefore, the rest of the

analysis will focus on the BEV model. From that point of the report, all the terms EV

are related to BEV.

3.3. Electric Vehicle connected to Grid (V2G)

In this part there is a comparison between normal use of EV and V2G use, in order to

identify the battery lifetime. V2G can communicate with the power grid to either

charge their batteries or deliver power, depending on the electricity demand (PG&E

2007). V2Gs are EVs (or PHEVs) which are able to send the power back to the grid if

and when needed. V2G can obviously be a technology which can have a great

interest associated with fluctuating renewable energy production as for example wind

power, because they allow better stabilization of the grid and prevention of power

shortages. V2Gs are considered by the experts as a key point to both introduce

environmental friendly vehicles by decreasing the fossil fuel use and expending the

renewable energy share in the close future. Notably, a project is being conducted in

Silicon Valley, USA (PG&E 2007), and another one in the island of Bornholm,

Denmark (Enviro 2009). However, the implementation of such a system also

possesses some disadvantages, especially regarding the battery lifespan compared to

the normal use of EVs, as it will be analysed later.

3.4. Advantages and disadvantages of V2G with a focus on Samsø

There are around 1,550 private cars in Samsø (Statistic Denmark 2011). As seen

previously, the production of electricity is supplied almost entirely by wind turbines.

There is no power production when the wind does not blow. In that particular case,

the energy system imports electricity from the mainland. The utilisation of V2Gs

could help cutting down this import of electricity. Moreover, V2Gs are suited for

ancillary services such as stabilizing the grid by keeping the frequency and voltage at

a constant level (Nemry 2009). The V2Gs are used as a quick source of power, ready

25

in 2-3 minutes to cover the changes in frequency and voltage due to frequent

changes in fluctuating renewable energy power production. This service has to be

guaranteed 24 hours per day and 7 days per week (Nemry 2009). This can be

fulfilled by the V2G technology when it is assumed that at least 70 per cent of the

car fleet is always parked in Denmark (Lund and Kempton 2008). Hence, due to the

small amount of power required, V2Gs could cover the demand, when there is lack of

wind electricity production in Samsø as mentioned before.

However, the implementation of V2Gs to cover the electricity demand is currently

limited by the storage capacity of the vehicles, as seen in Table 2, which is very small

compared to the required capacity for the grid. As a matter of fact, the everyday

average electricity consumption is 77 MWh (Tambjerg 2009). It is also limited by the

capacity of the electric cables connecting the vehicle to the grid (Kempton and Tomic

2005). For instance, if four hours are needed to charge an EV‟s battery, it takes the same time to discharge the power back to the grid. Hence, the V2Gs can respond

quickly but not quantitatively to the demand. It can be only considered as a small

back-up power source. In addition, the Dutch company SP Innovation, specialized

commercializing new clean technologies as EVs and V2Gs, made a report in 2008

stipulating that the bidirectional efficiency is between 45 and 85 per cent

(Spinnovation 2008). This bidirectional efficiency is defined as the amount of power

sent back to the grid, regarding the power send in the first place to the vehicle. This

efficiency depends on the battery type and on the percentage of capacity at which

the cycle charge/discharge occurs. Considering that losses in the grid cables are

usually around 7 per cent (U.S Energy information 2009), it can be assumed that the

losses can be higher in a V2G scheme than in an import/export scheme. To

implement such a system, state-of-the-art control and communication devices are

required to enable the grid operator determining in real time the power capacity

available in the grid, making it possible to request power from the vehicles when

needed. The management of electricity fed or consumed by the V2Gs can be

performed by using a remote controlled device.

One of the main disadvantages of V2G, which has been discussed quickly before, is

the impact that can occur to the batteries. As a matter of fact, the V2G system

implies more charges and discharges and so the battery lifespan will be shorter than

for a normally utilized EV‟s battery. It has been tried to make an assessment of the

difference of the lifespan of the battery for EVs and V2Gs. A brief summarize of the

batteries which can be used in EVs and especially the lithium-ion, can be found

below.

26

3.4.1. Battery l ifespan of V2G and EV

The V2G technology makes sense only if the amount of vehicles parked at the same

time is significant enough to make a difference. As a matter of fact, if only a few

vehicles are able to give power back to the grid, the individual amount of full

charges/discharges of their battery will be very high, which will have an impact on

the lifespan of the battery (Spinnovation 2008). The less V2Gs connected to the grid,

the higher is the probability to have empty batteries, which can be a problem when

people want to drive. If the owners of the vehicles refuse to have their batteries

emptied, then electricity deficit has to be imported, thus the system is non-effective.

The cycle life for EV‟s battery is defined as the number of charges and discharges

THE LITHIUM-ION BATTERY

Today, the lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery is the most used by the EV manufacturers because they are the most competitive, compared to batteries used in previous models, the nickel-metal-hydride (NiMH) and the nickel-cadmium (NiCD). Figure 11 below shows a brief summary of the battery evolution over the years. NiCD and NiMH batteries have been developed almost completely to their potential maturity level. Further improvements and cost reductions cannot be achieved (JRC Technical notes 2009). It is also shown that the maximum possible energy density of NiCD batteries acquired is 200 Wh/L while the NiMH‟s maximum gain was 350 Wh/L which was the last assessed in the period of 2003. Unlike them, the maximum potential for Li-ion battery has not yet been exploited and this gives it room for further future developments (JRC Technical notes 2009). As it can be seen on Figure 11, significant energy densities have been achieved ranging from 350 Wh/L to 620 Wh/L, which makes it the most suitable for PHEV, BEV and V2G applications. The Li-ion batteries have not yet reached the maturity stage and continue to be developed up to date.

Figure 11: Evolution of battery energy densities (JRC Technical notes 2009)

27

that the battery can completely perform before the capacity decreases below 80 per

cent of the initial capacity (Electropedia 2005). The time, the number of

charge/discharge as well as the depth of the discharge affects mainly the cycle life. If

the Li-ion battery cycle is supposed to be between 500 and 1,200 recharges

(Electropedia 2005), the graph below shows that it could be recharged up to 4,700

times if the depth of discharge is only 10 per cent.

Figure 12: Depth of discharge vs Cycle life for Li-Ion battery (ConsumerPla.net 2011)

Figure 12 shows the relation between the cycle life of the Li-ion battery and the

depth of the discharge. The figure is from an analysis about Li-ion battery used for

laptop (ConsumerPla.net 2011). The decrease of life cycle depending on the depth of

discharges is a chemical phenomenon which occurs in every types of battery

(Electropedia 2005). Thus, it can be assumed that Figure 12 corresponds also to Li-

ion batteries used for EVs and can be therefore use for the analysis. As it can be

seen, the difference is noticeable between for example, usual discharge at 20 per

cent and at 90 per cent. At 20 per cent, the number of cycles is around 3,000 times,

while it drops down to around 750 times at 90 per cent of discharge.

In order to emphasize the difference in the battery lifespan depending on the driving

behaviour of the people, two cases have been built. Regarding the technical data,

both of them are based on the characteristics of the Nissan Leaf which has a range

of 150 km (eTec 2010).The first case is a non-intensive driver who drives 50 km per

day. Considering the driving range of 150 km, the driver does not have to charge the

28

car during the day, but do it every night. It means that the number of charges per

day is one, and the depth of discharge is 33 per cent. Looking at Figure 12, it

corresponds at 1,900 numbers of charges. With the one charge per day, it means

that the battery will last for 1,900 days, or slightly more than 5 years. In the second

case, the intensive driver drives 200 km per day, 100 km in the morning to go to

work, and 100 km in the evening to return home. Hence, the battery has to be

charged during the day and the night, and the discharge corresponds to 66 per cent

of the initial capacity each time. Again looking at Figure 12, the number of charges

will be 1,200. Adding the fact that the battery has to be charged twice a day, the

battery would last only slightly more than 1 year and a half. There is a factor 3.25

concerning the lifespan of the battery between the two cases.

Table 3: Comparison of battery lifespan depending on the driving daily routine

Non-intensive driver Intensive driver

Driving daily routine [km/day] 50 200

Number of charges needed

[number/day]

1 2

Numbers of charges available 1,900 1,200

Battery lifespan [yr.] 5.2 1.6

Now that the impact of the number of charges and the depth in the battery lifespan

has been highlighted, the comparison analysis between V2G and EV using Li-ion

batteries can be done. The V2Gs are expected to cover the ancillary services which

have been assumed to use 5 per cent of the battery every day. The V2Gs are also

expected to cover the demand when the wind does not blow in Samsø, which

corresponds to 80 days per year. This is an assumption extract from a report made

with the software EnergyPlan on Samsø for an earlier project (Chapter 2). The depth

of discharge used to cover the demand changes significantly depending on the

number of vehicles and the demand. It has been considered that 60 per cent of the

battery is discharged to cover the demand. It corresponds to a total discharge of the

battery when the daily routine is between 50 and 60 km per day and when the wind

does not blow. The analysis has been made for daily routine between 10 and 60 km

per day. The inputs of the analysis are summarized in Table 4.

Table 4: Main assumptions and inputs used for the calculation of EV and V2G battery lifespan

Daily driving routine [km/day] From 10 to 60

Depth of discharges from driving [% of the battery] From 6 to 40

Depth of discharges from ancillary services [% of the battery] 5

Depth of discharges from covering demand [% of the battery] 60

For instance, with a daily routine of 50 km, the discharge of the battery is equal to

33 per cent. As the wind blows 285 days per year, 38 per cent of the battery, 5 from

the ancillary services and 33 from the daily routine, is discharged during this period

in two different discharges. During the other 80 days, 98 per cent of the battery is

discharged, 5 from the ancillary services, 33 from the daily routine and the 60 to

cover the demand, in three times per day. In that case, using the calculation as for

29

the previous cases for EV, the lifespan will reach almost 3 years. The difference in

the battery lifespan between EV and V2G whose owner drives 50 km every day

would be therefore slightly more than two years, which corresponds to a factor 1.8.

This result highlights well the shorter lifespan for V2Gs‟ batteries compared to EVs‟.

The same calculation has been made for different amount of kilometres driven per

day, for the three different cases: EVs, V2Gs including ancillary services and V2Gs

including ancillary services and covering demand. To conduct this analysis, an Excel

spread sheet has been used. For the different cases associated to different depths of

discharge in percentage (from 6 to 40 for the daily routine, 5 for ancillary services,

60 for the covering demand), the related number of charges has been calculated as

well as the number of days. Finally, the different number of days has been summed

up with a coefficient factor depending on the frequency of them in a year (80 days

corresponds to 21.9 per cent of the year). The results are shown in Figure 13.

Figure 13: Battery lifespan comparison for EVs and V2Gs

Figure 13 emphasizes the longer lifespan of EVs‟ batteries compared to V2Gs‟. The difference between the lifespan of the three cases decreases when the number of

kilometres driven increases, but the difference factor between the blue and purple

curves remains superior to 1.8. There are just a few months difference between the

V2Gs used only for ancillary services and the V2Gs used for both ancillary services

and covering demand. This is mainly due to the fact that the wind blows around 80

per cent of the time in Samsø, whereas the ancillary services are requested every

day.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

10 20 30 40 50 60

Ba

tte

ry li

fesp

an

[y

r.]

Distance per day [km/day]

Evs

V2Gs ancillary services

V2Gs anc + demand covering

30

This mode of calculation raises an issue if the daily routine is more than 60 km. In

that case, the system will have to import electricity or take more than 60 per cent

from other vehicles, if possible. For example, if the daily routine of the other vehicles

is 30 km per day, only 20 per cent of the charge is used and thus 75 per cent can be

used for covering the demand. In the next paragraph, an electricity import-export

analysis is made to assess the impact of the different driving patterns during the day

on the electricity exchange scheme.

3.5. Electricity import-export analysis

As seen in the description of the technologies, EVs and V2Gs are very similar. The

main difference is the storage of electricity that can be used to lower the import from

the mainland. From the perspective of the electricity demand, the integration of EVs

in Samsø‟s network can have some consequences on the import/export balance.

The difference of consumption between EVs and home appliances can be large, for

instance a refrigerator label A+ consumes in average 0.55 kWh per day (Topten

2006) whereas a vehicle driven during 50 km per day consumes around 8 kWh per

day. In comparison to the average electricity consumption of household, which is

around 10.9 kWh per day in Denmark (WorldEnergy.org 2008), the addition of the

EV consumption represents an increase of 172 per cent.

In this part, a quick overview of the system impact of a replacement of the

conventional vehicle fleet with EVs, which corresponds to 1,554 vehicles (Statistic

Denmark 2011), is developed. Two scenarios of charging management, basic and

smart, are modelled. This will allow seeing how the system reacts with a focus on

import/export.

Basic scenario: this mode considers that EVs are always charged as much as

possible, no matter if there is an excess electricity or not. It can be considered as the

worst-case scenario; there is no control in the manner of charging vehicles and the

peak of demand may coincide with the charging time. The pseudo code is presented

below:

31

Smart scenario: this mode avoids charging vehicles when there is electricity import

from the mainland, if it is not absolutely required. When both charging for vehicles

and importing electricity from the mainland are required, the system will allow the

vehicles to charge during off-peak demand periods. The pseudo code is presented

below:

The study has been conducted for a timeframe of one year using Excel on an hourly

basis. The export/import of Samsø has been calculated by using the same

Energyplan project described in chapter 2 and then implemented to Excel. The

analysis is based on a scenario where all the vehicles have been replaced by EVs

with a 24 kWh battery and a range of 150 km which corresponds to the

characteristics of the Nissan Leaf (Nissan 2011). The driving pattern guide has been

inspired from a report about the integration of EV in Denmark (Wu, et al. 2010) and

has been slightly modified, presented in Table 5. This table also shows the average

percentage of vehicles connected to the grid and the average percentage of vehicles

on the road every hour. It has been assumed that there are 20 per cent of vehicles

which are parked but not connected to the grid. For instance at 6 a.m., five per cent

of the vehicles are on the road, it means that during an hour five per cent of the

vehicles are doing around 50 km. Then the energy consumption for the entire vehicle

fleet can be deduced. In this case:

Energy consumed:

Maximum capacity of the batteries:

32

Table 5: Driving pattern guide in Denmark adapted from Wu (Wu, et al. 2010)

Hour

Percentage of

cars

connected to

the grid

Percentage

of cars on

the road

0 79% 1%

1 79% 1%

2 79% 1%

3 79% 1%

4 79% 1%

5 78% 2%

6 75% 5%

7 67% 13%

8 72% 8%

9 77% 3%

10 77% 3%

11 75% 5%

12 77% 3%

13 75% 5%

14 75% 5%

15 75% 5%

16 67% 13%

17 72% 8%

18 75% 5%

19 75% 5%

20 77% 3%

21 78% 2%

22 79% 1%

23 79% 1%

Comparing the driving pattern presented in Table 5 with the average electricity

demand in Samsø presented in Figure 14 adapted from the Danish demand, it

appears that the percentage of people using their cars reaches its maximum just

before the peaks of the demand and remains quite constant during mid-day.

Figure 14: Comparison between driving and demand patterns in Samsø adapted from the Danish demand

(EnergiNET 2011)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Pe

rce

nta

ge

[%

]

Hour [h]

Demand pattern in Samsø Driving pattern

33

The result of this analysis shows the difference in export/import in relation to

managing ways of the daily charge of EVs. Table 6 shows the total import and export

for one year for the two scenarios presented before and the reference one. The

reference scenario corresponds to the current situation, which means without EVs.

Replacing the entire conventional car fleet by EVs represents an increase of the

electricity demand by more than 4,600 MWh per year. However, comparing to the

reference scenario, the difference in the import can vary from almost nothing for the

smart scenario to 1,100 MWh for the basic scenario. It represents an increase of 127

per cent for the basic scenario whereas the increase is only 102 per cent for the

smart scenario.

Table 6: Comparison of the different scenarios

Reference Basic Smart

Import [MWh] 4,203 5,320 4,280

Export [MWh] 85,203 81,712 80,672

Balance [MWh] 81,000 76,392 76,391

More precisely in Figure 15, the difference due to energy management can be

noticed. When import is required, the charging is limited for the smart scenario and

occurs only during the off-peak hours of the demand. On the contrary, there is no

control of the charging in the basic scenario. The result is a higher import share for

the basic scenario than for the smart as seen in Table 6.

Figure 15: Hourly comparison of the two scenarios

In conclusion, in spite of the lack of precision of the driving pattern, it can be

deduced that a replacement of the conventional car fleet by EVs can be done. It will

decrease the export and will not have significant impacts on the import. In fact, even

if the electricity demand will increase by around 4,600 MWh, then a smart charging

-6,00

-4,00

-2,00

0,00

2,00

4,00

6,00

8,00

10,00

12,00

14,00

11 15 19 23 3 7 11 15 19 23 3 7 11 15 19 23 3 7 11 15 19 23 3 7 11 15 19 23 3 7 11 15 19 23

En

erg

y [

MW

h]

Hours [h]

Charging demand with basic EVs Charging demand with smart EVs Export/import without EVs

34

control can prevent the import from rising. The import can vary a lot depending the

charging way as it has been developed previously.

It has been seen that EVs are technically more suitable for Samsø. In order to get an

insight of the viability of the EVs, the next chapter will compare the costs of

purchasing and using electric and conventional vehicles.

35

4. Costs comparison of electric and conventional vehicles

From the Chapter 3, it has been deduced that V2Gs have a shorter battery lifespan

than EVs. Considering the current cost of batteries and the few impacts they can

have on the import/export, it has been decided not to consider this technology later

on in this report. In the same way, PHEVs will also not be considered because of

their high costs due to high taxes and the technical facts previously developed which

do not perfectly fit to the objective of Samsø: use excess electricity and be

independent as much as possible from fossil fuel.

About taxes, in Denmark there are several that consumers have to pay especially,

when they want to purchase a new vehicle. These taxes are registration tax, vehicle

excise duty or green owner tax and the countervailing charges. The registration tax

is the major tax applied when someone buys a new vehicle. This tax is usually

between 105 and 180 per cent of the original purchase cost. This is paid once when

the vehicle is purchased and never again meaning that a second handed vehicle does

not have this kind of tax. In Denmark, more than 70 per cent of the government‟s income, generated from car taxes, is coming from the registration tax (SKAT DK

2011). This particular tax results to making the total price of a vehicle purchased in

Denmark two or even three times more than the price of the same vehicle purchased

in another European country. Vehicle excise duty or green owner tax is often

referred as the consumption tax of the vehicles. This is a tax paid annually focusing

on the environmental aspect and how much polluting a car is. It is usually between

160 and 6480 DKK per year, the prices vary a lot according to the type of the vehicle

(SKAT DK 2011). Countervailing charges is a tax the owners of diesel vehicles have

to pay. It is a way to create equal prices between diesel and gasoline fuelled vehicles

for the same amount of distance travelled. For instance if the gasoline tax is

increased then this countervailing charge tax for the diesel is increased in order to

keep the same proportion of prices between the two different types of fuel.

These taxes explain the high cost of vehicle purchasing in Denmark. However, some

incentives exist. More precisely, the current policy regarding the EVs includes only

the insurance payment which as expected is for all the vehicles and could not be

excluded in any means. The most important incentive is the exclusion from the

registration taxation which will take effect until 2012, but the plan is to extend this

period until 2015 (Denmark.dk 2010). Last but not least, it appears that all these

exemptions can reduce a total cost of a BEV almost by 60 per cent compared to a

similar regular vehicle with a combustion engine, something that it should be

mentioned that is unique among the other European countries. Finally, it should be

noticed that PHEVs are not incentivised in Denmark, thus their cost is much higher

than a BEV and for this reason they are not considered in this report.

36

Through this analysis, a cost comparison between electric and conventional vehicles

is conducted in order to show the possibilities regarding the implementation of EVs

from an economic point of view. The analysis gives a point of comparison between

each technology considering their economic costs including the taxes. The two

scenarios, presented in Figure 16, will be detailed later in this part.

Figure 16: Presentation of the two scenarios

The economic analysis is mostly based on facts concerning the Danish market. For

the two cases, it has been considered that the expected lifespan of a car is 13 years

and runs for 20,000 km per year (Statistic Denmark 2011). The 20,000 km number

has been chosen arbitrarily for the analysis. Moreover, the number of kilometres is

related to the driving habits and the type of ownership, which will be developed later

in chapter 5, hence it does not need to be perfectly accurate in order to conduct a

cost comparison. However, the result for different driving range is also provided at

the end of this part. The fuel prices (diesel, gasoline and electricity) have been

extracted from the European Union‟s energy portal (EU member states 2011) and are

considered to be constant. A quotation for the insurance has been done for an

electric vehicle by a Danish insurance company (Tryg.dk 2011). The estimated cost is

12,000 DKK per year, for a young driver without experience. This cost is used for the

two scenarios and in order to minimize the impact of the insurance cost, vehicles of

the same category have been preferred. Concerning the maintenance costs, it has

been difficult to assess a relevant number due to the growing and the large scale

development of the technology. For this reason, a worst case scenario for EVs has

been chosen; similar maintenance costs between electric and conventional vehicles.

It is a worst case scenario because most of the new documentation about EVs

forecast a lower maintenance costs (ChoosEV 2011) due to the absence of

mechanical parts in EVs. The discount rate represents the lending interest rate

37

corrected with the inflation for this project (Trading Economics s.d.). The result has

been extracted from a bar chart presenting the real interest rate, it is equal to 4.5

per cent and this is the value which is used for all the cost calculation in this project.

The main objective of this analysis is to calculate the cost per kilometre in order to

have a point of comparison regardless the technology used. The method was used to

calculate the cost per kilometre as follows. Firstly, the net present value (NPV) is

calculated from the depreciation cost, the loan interest, the insurance, the

maintenance and repair costs and the cost of the fuel. Then the number obtained is

divided by the number of kilometres during the life of the vehicle because it is

considered to be kept during its entire lifetime (Excite s.d.).

Specific characteristics of each scenario and chosen vehicles are described in the

following sub-parts.

4.1.1. Scenario 1 – EV

In this scenario, the few numbers of EVs available on the Danish market made the

choice of the Nissan Leaf evident. In fact, the Nissan Leaf represents one of the most

advanced EVs; it is part of the new wave of EVs including a mature technology as

well as an attractive price which allows the comparison with conventional vehicle.

The Nissan Leaf has a 24 kWh battery for a range of 150 km and a price of 244,651

DKK (32,839 €) in the Netherlands without incentives (Nissan 2010). As described in

the chapter 3, the battery lifespan depends on the cycle life. The price for a brand

new battery pack is announced to be around 9,000 $ (Kitamura et Iwatani 2010)

which represents 47,250 DKK. Moreover, Nissan proposes a battery warranty of

160,000 km or 8 years (Green Car Congress 2010), thus these figures have been

considered for the calculation.

For all EVs, a home charging station is required. It is supposed to cost around

2,000 $ in the USA (Nissan 2011), which is around 10,000 DKK. It is in the same

range that the one proposed by Better Place, an electric vehicles company

implemented in Denmark (BetterPlace 2011). The cost will be discussed later on the

implementation part in chapter 6.

4.1.2. Scenario 2 – Conventional scenario

Most of the vehicles sold in Denmark are small ones (De Danske Bilimportører 2010).

However, it has been decided to choose a vehicle in the same category as the Nissan

Leaf in order to have an accurate comparison. The best-selling vehicle of the year

2010 in same category is the Toyota Avensis in Denmark. Two different engines have

been chosen: diesel and gasoline. The characteristics as well as the costs of those

38

two models have been extracted from the official website of Toyota in Denmark

(Toyota 2011).

In Denmark, the share of passenger vehicles is distributed as follow: 25 per cent for

diesel vehicles and 75 per cent for vehicles (Statistic Denmark 2011). The results for

diesel and gasoline vehicles have been combined using this distribution to reach a

unique cost.

4.1.3. Result and Comparison

The data from the two scenarios have been collected and gathered in Table 7. The

results show an important difference of costs between the two scenarios. Unlike the

public opinion about cost of EVs, the scenario 1 is 40 øre cheaper per kilometre than

the scenario 2. The explanations for these results are partly the government

incentives and also the improvements of the batteries‟ capacity and lifespan. It makes the choice of an EV possible and less costly. However, it has to be relativized

by the few current possibilities to charge cars. Swapping battery station and public

charging stations are not yet well developed and can be considered as a hindrance.

Currently, EVs have to be used as a short range vehicle, enough for most of the

people to go to their workplaces and for the daily life but maybe not suitable to go

on holidays for example.

Table 7: Cost comparison between electric and conventional vehicles

Scenario 1 Scenario 2

Manufacturer Nissan Toyota

Model Leaf Avensis 2.0 D-4D

DPF

Avensis 1.6 Valvematic

T1

Cost of the car [DKK], including VAT 244,651 338,385 285,953

Cost after 13 years; depreciation [DKK] 0 0 0

Type of engine electric diesel gasoline

Average use [km/yr.] 20,000 20,000 20,000

Installation of a private charge spot [DKK] 10,000 - -

Battery lifetime [yr.] 8 - -

Battery cost [DKK] 47,250 - -

Battery lease [DKK/month] - - -

Battery capacity [kWh] 24 - -

Range with full battery [km] 150 - -

O&M [DKK/yr.] 12,500 12,500 12,500

Average lifespan [yr.] 13 13 13

Fuel consumption [km/kWh] or [km/l] 6.3 18.5 15.2

Fuel price [DKK/kWh] or [DKK/l] 1.8 11.3 12.5

Insurance [DKK/yr.] 12,000 12,000 12,000

Total cost with interest rate [DKK] 581,934 694,217 682,440

Cost per km with interest rate [DKK/km] 2.24 2.67 2.62

2.64

References: Technical data and costs are extracted from the manufacturer official website: Nissan and

Toyota. The insurance cost is issued from a quotation of the Danish insurance company Tryg (Tryg.dk

39

2011) and the maintenance cost is from a cost comparison done by the company Better Place

between EVs and a Diesel vehicle (Better place 2010).

In addition, Figure 17 shows that the number of kilometres driven per year has no

influence on the result order. The scenario 1 remains the cheapest regardless the

number of kilometres. Between 5,000 and 20,000 km, the scenario 1 is more than 40

øre cheaper per kilometre than the scenario 2. After that, there is a decrease of the

gap due to battery cost, between 20,000 and 40,000 km the gap is around 15 øre

per kilometre. It can also be important to notice that the interest rate has influence

on the final cost but the sorting remains the same and the gap tends to increase.

Figure 17: Evolution of the cost of the two scenarios according to the number of kilometres per year

As seen in Figure 18, the cost per kilometre is highly influenced by the fluctuation of

fuel prices for the diesel and gasoline vehicles. In contrary, the electricity price is

supposed to stay more constant during the next decades than the oil prices.

Figure 18: Evolution of the cost per kilometre according to the fuel prices including the results from Table 7

0,001,002,003,004,005,006,007,008,009,00

10,00

5000 10 000 15 000 20 000 30 000 40 000

Co

sts

[DK

K/k

m]

Number for kilometres [km/yr.]

Scenario 1 (EV) Scenario 2 (Conventional)

0,00

0,50

1,00

1,50

2,00

2,50

3,00

3,50

0 5 10 15 20 25Co

st p

er

kil

om

etr

e [

DK

K/k

m]

Fuel price [DKK]

Diesel Gasoline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 (Diesel) Scenario 2 (Gasoline)

40

5. Socio-economic analysis on ownership models for EVs regarding

local requirements

This chapter deals with the different ownership models existing and then continue

with their cost comparison. In the second part of the analysis, the possibility of

realization in Samsø is shortly analysed describing and considering the feedback

from the local experts and inhabitants. In Samsø‟s case, the people‟s own impressions and approach are crucial for the implementation of the EVs, therefore in

the final decision their opinion will play a huge role.

5.1. Ownership options for electric vehicles

Choosing the right ownership model can help to reduce the purchase costs, ensure

the most convenient solution for the consumers and thus facilitate the

implementation. The different ownership models existing are:

Private ownership

Mixed: battery leasing and individual vehicle ownership

Leasing

Renting

Taxi

Car sharing

The above mentioned options will be discussed in detail in the following, excluding

renting and taxi which are only occasional solutions. The aim of the analysis is to

identify the main advantages and disadvantages of the different ownership models

to find the way to use them later in chapter 6 about implementation. The intention is

to introduce EVs to Samsø as a suitable method for daily use, thus in this analysis

practical usage and convenience should be considered as well as financial issues.

5.1.1. Private ownership

The classical, individual ownership is the general method of using a vehicle. This is

the most convenient and known form of ownership; they can be important factors in

the decision making, considering that one third of the population is more than 60

years old in Samsø (Statistic Denmark 2011). As explained in Chapter 4, the total

cost of an EV is lower than a conventional vehicle in Denmark. However, people

could be reluctant from buying an EV because of the lack of trust in this relatively

unknown technology.

41

5.1.2. Mixed ownership

The mixed ownership is when the vehicle itself is privately owned and the battery is

leased. Hence, this model resembles the same convenience as the private ownership

solution. As an advantage, the battery cost can be reduced through leasing, which

requires a smaller initial investment from the people compared to the private

ownership. Further benefits can be provided by the battery leasing operator. In the

case of the project Better Place established in 2007 in California which is developing

its first projects in Denmark and Israel, some services are proposed. It offers the

possibility to swap the battery of a vehicle in three minutes with a fully-charged.

Moreover, intelligent in-car and network software, which help the driver dealing with

the current battery power and planning the next charge, are also proposed

(BetterPlace 2011).

5.1.3. Leasing

By leasing an EV, owners can maintain the convenience of private ownership, while

investing in a smaller amount of money initially. Leasing can be seen roughly as a

long term rent, where the consumer pays monthly or yearly for using the vehicle.

There are different advantages related to this solution, so more and more people

choose leasing against purchasing nowadays. In Denmark, leasing private vehicles

has also become very popular since 2007, with huge increase of 61 per cent in 2009,

thus in 2010 approximately one tenth of the vehicles are sold on a leasing contract

(EzineMark.com 2010).

The reason for this trend can be the several advantages of leasing, as for instance

that people do not have to consider the future value of the vehicle, because they do

not sell it in the end. Hence, it is much easier to change car models, which can be

useful in the case of EVs; people can change them after the end of the contract,

when a technically better or cheaper model arrives on the market. Furthermore,

leasing in Denmark can be cheaper than purchasing a vehicle, depending on the

vehicle category and the annual distance covered. Hence, usually 12,000 or 15,000

km per year is contracted with the companies and extra costs have to be paid if this

limit is crossed (Rathje 2010).

5.1.4. Car sharing

Car sharing is a concept of personal transportation which is getting more and more

popular in the cities of Europe and USA in the last few years. There are different

models of car sharing, but the main principle is that individuals have access to a

fleet of vehicles after joining a profit or non-profit oriented organisation. In 2006,

there were almost 350,000 participants sharing 11,700 vehicles in the World, more

than half of them in Europe, mainly in Switzerland and Germany (Shaheen and

42

Cohen 2007). In the beginning of 2011, Germany itself had 190,000 participants and

5,000 shared vehicles (Autoflotte 2011). Hence, it seems that theory is working in

practice and people are willing to share vehicles so much that it is expected to have

5.5 million participants in Europe by 2016. One tenth of the shared and one fifth of

the newly shared vehicles are expected to be electric by this time (Frost & Sullivan

2010). The main reasons for its popularity are:

Reducing the total cost of the individual users due to shared costs.

Decreasing the parking spaces needed due to less vehicles used.

Improving air quality and reducing energy consumption due to less driving

(Barth and Shaheen 2002) and possibilities for using electric/hybrid vehicles.

The fixed costs of the private vehicle ownership are replaced by variable costs

(Barth and Shaheen 2002). This encourages other transportation means such

as walking, biking and public transport.

Car Sharing Organizations (CSOs) handle all the expenses and maintain the vehicle

fleet, which usually contain different models such as small vehicles, family vehicles

and light trucks. CSO members can use the vehicles when needed, thus this system

maintains the advantages of a private vehicle while offering a more flexible solution

than the public transportation. The participants book the vehicles via telephone or

online before using them. The service requires an entry fee, a deposit, a monthly

membership fee and costs per kilometre and/or per hour driven, as presented in

Table 8.

Table 8: Usual cost types in a CSO in Denmark for conventional vehicles. The costs are the average of eight Danish CSOs, considering every size of vehicles (Albertslund Delebil 2011) (Århus Delebilklub 2011)

(Bryggebilen 2009) (Hertz Delebilen 2011) (Køge Delebil 2011) (Københavns Delebiler 2011) (Munksøgård Delebilklub n.d.) (Silkeborg Delebilklub 2011).

Name Costs in Denmark

One-off costs Entry fee 2,000-3,000 DKK Deposit 2,000-2,500 DKK

Monthly costs Membership fee 180-440 DKK

Usage charges Per km driven 1,5-8,5 DKK/km (incl. fuel and services)

Per hour driven Various; on average 21 DKK/hour

The different basic models of car sharing systems can be classified as the followings,

according to Barth and Shaheen (2002). These models are all suitable for EVs,

because the vehicles are used for smaller distances and they can be charged at the

certain parking places (lots, stations etc.).

43

A. THE NEIGHBOURHOOD CAR SHARING MODEL

Figure 19: Working method of the neighbourhood model (Barth and Shaheen 2002)

This is the classic model of car sharing, functioning as it can be seen in Figure 19.

Typically, in this system the vehicles are in many, densely placed shared car parking

lots in the important points of a city and at residential areas. After reserving a

vehicle, the member goes to a parking lot (the nearest or with the preferred type of

vehicle), access the vehicle with a card that handles the information about usage

and payment, and drives. Finally, the vehicle will be returned to the exact same

parking lot. This model is usually used when people need to go shopping, recreation,

carry furniture, etc. but rarely to commute (Barth and Shaheen 2002).

Figure 20: Shared-car parking lots in Atlanta (Scott Ehardt, 2007)

B. STATION CARS

The station car model is typically used by commuters, since its original aim was to

help the rail commuters to go to the railway station from their homes and vice versa.

Hence, as it can be seen in Figure 21 the user drives a station car from home to the

44

rail/bust/other transit station. One uses public transport, and then picks a station car

again to drive to work and vice versa. Other users can take the vacant vehicles from

the stations throughout the day to make small trips (Barth and Shaheen 2002). In

Denmark, Better Place and DSB are planning the same pilot project using EVs at

Høje-Taastrup and Skanderborg stations in Copenhagen (Yoney 2009).

Figure 21: Working method of the station model (Barth and Shaheen 2002)

C. MULTI-NODAL SHARED-USE VEHICLES

In this system, the vehicles are placed at different nodes like in Figure 22, and the

users can use the vehicles and after return them in any parking lots. Hence, it is

similar to the city bike system in Aalborg. However, problems can occur with this

extended freedom and flexibility when there are many vehicles in certain stations

and few in others, thus the balance may be compromised and vehicles relocation

needed.

Figure 22: Working method of the multi-nodal model (Barth and Shaheen 2002)

45

5.2. Comparison of current costs of the ownership models

To evaluate which of the above mentioned ownership models can offer a financially

favourable option, the ownership models‟ costs are calculated using current prices in Denmark. In the calculations, the private ownership, the mixed ownership, leasing

and car sharing are compared with different timeframes and with 10,000, 15,000

and 20,000 kilometres driven per year, with an interest rate of 4.5 per cent as

described in chapter 4. For the private vehicles ownership, the calculation method is

the same as in chapter 4.

The mixed ownership model is based on costs from Better Place. One model of EVs

will be available in Denmark during the year 2011; the Renault Fluence Z.E. which is

issued from the partnership between Better Place and Renault/Nissan group. This

car costs 208,680 DKK (Better Place 2010) and has a 22 kWh battery which provides

a maximum range of 185 km (Renault and Better Place 2011). A home charging

facility is required as well as a monthly contract for the battery leasing according to

the number of kilometres per year expected which respectively cost 9995 DKK and

1,495 DKK per month for 10,000 km per year or 1,696 DKK per month for 15,000

km per year (Better Place 2011), as seen in Table 9. The monthly subscription

includes the price of electricity consumed.

Table 9: Indicative price list of Better Place subscriptions (Better Place 2011)

Number of kilometres per year [km] Subscription per month [DKK] Over kilometre cost [DKK] Up to 10,000 1,495 2.24 Up to 15,000 1,695 1.70 Up to 20,000 1,895 1.42 Up to 30,000 2,495 1.25 40,000/unlimited 2,995 -

For leasing, ChoosEV company‟s costs are chosen. ChoosEV is a 16-month-old

company, which has the main share of its charging stations in Copenhagen. They

are planning to install 300 basic and 8 fast charging stations in Denmark in 2011,

focusing on other cities such as Aarhus, Aalborg and Odense (Petersen, About

ChoosEV 2011).

The costs described in Table 10 are related to the lease of a small vehicle from

ChoosEV, such as Citroën C-Zero, Peugeot Ion, and Mitsubishi iMiev (ChoosEV Int.

2011). These leasing prices are based on a subscription period of three years. All the

prices calculated for leasing are assumed to be the prices illustrated in Table 10

even if the leasing price is expected to be lower for a leasing time of more than 3

years. By leasing a car from ChoosEV, the consumer has to pay a monthly leasing

price and also a monthly subscription.

46

Table 10: Leasing costs adopted from ChooseEV leasing company for a 3-year period (Petersen, About ChoosEV 2011)

10000 km/year 15000 km/year

Private price per month 5095 DKK 5495 DKK

Company price per month 4895 DKK 5295 DKK

The monthly leasing price includes all the costs of the maintenance and services, but

it does not include insurance. For this reason insurance cost is assumed to be 12,000

DKK per year, same as in the case of the private car in chapter 4. The monthly

subscription is 479 DKK that includes the charging costs and the home spot facility,

as well as the access to the public charging stations. It should be noticed that a

contract with ChoosEV requires a minimum of two years (Petersen, About ChoosEV

2011).

For car sharing, two CSOs‟ prices were used to the calculations from Danish companies with EVs available to share. Both Move About and Københavns Delebiler

have EVs for sharing in Copenhagen, but the two companies have different payment

methods. It has to be mentioned that probably, the island situation will have impacts

on local CSO prices, thus the following prices are just informative prices.

According to the payment methods, the company Move About seems to be a

combination of a car renting company and a CSO. They have four parking lots in

Copenhagen with EVs. The customers only have to pay a monthly fee of 99 DKK and

a fee according to the duration of the trip, which can be for one hour (99 DKK), half

a day (299 DKK), a whole day (499 DKK) or a whole weekend (799 DKK) (Move

About 2011). No additional costs are required.

Københavns Delebiler has a classic CSO payment method with an entry fee (1,900

DKK), a monthly fee (220 DKK) and a fee per hour (24 DKK) and per kilometre (2.95

DKK) driven for EVs (Københavns Delebiler 2011). Maintenance cost and electricity

price are also included.

While calculating the final costs, the following method is used to make an

assumption for the duration costs. From the yearly total number of kilometres

divided by an average speed of 60 km per hour, a yearly average of total driving

hours was calculated, as illustrated in Table 11. In both cases the hourly fee was

taken into consideration and is multiplied by the total driving hours per year.

Table 11: Annual driving hours according to the annual driving distance

km/year hour/year 10,000 167 15,000 250 20,000 333

In the case of the Move About‟s costs, it gives a quite low final cost in the end due to the large difference between the first two options: 99 DKK for an hour or 299 DKK

47

for half a day. The current needs are probably between these two options in Samsø,

but finally the hourly option was chosen.

Due to the difference of renting/owning period between scenarios, it has been

decided to include the depreciation cost in the calculation to obtain the most

relevant numbers. Hence, an annual depreciation of 20 per cent is applied to the

price tag of the vehicle. In Figure 23 is illustrated the curve obtained for the Nissan

Leaf.

Figure 23: Price of the Nissan Leaf with an annual depreciation of 20 per cent

As presented in Table 12, the costs of the different ownership models, represented

by the calculation of the net present value (NPV), are gathered. The NPV is based on

a 7 years period and 10,000 km driven annually. These costs vary significantly

depending on the number of kilometres per year and the length of the period as

detailed later.

Table 12: NPV of the different ownership models for an annual driving range of 10,000 km and a 7 years period (Nissan 2010) (Better Place 2011) (Petersen, About ChoosEV 2011) (ChoosEV 2011) (Move About 2011)

(Københavns Delebiler 2011)

Private Mixed Leasing Car sharing

Company - Better Place ChoosEV Move About Københavns Delebiler

Purchasing cost for EV [DKK] 244,651 208,680 - - -

Cost after depreciation [DKK] 51,307 43,763 - - -

Entry fee [DKK] - - - - 1900

Monthly fee [DKK/mo.] - 1,495 5,095 99 220

Subscription fee [DKK/mo.] - - 479 - -

Fee per km [DKK/km] - - - - 2.95

Fee per hour [DKK/h] - - - 99 24

Maintenance cost [DKK/yr.] 12,500 12,500 - - -

Insurance cost [DKK/yr.] 12,000 12,000 12,000 - -

Battery cost [DKK] 47,250 - - - -

Home spot cost [DKK] 10,000 10,000 - - -

Electricity price [DKK/kWh] 1.8 - - - -

NPV [DKK] 411,936 425,003 464,863 104,425 214,909

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Pri

ce o

f th

e v

eh

icle

[D

KK

]

Period [yr.]

Price of the Nissan Leaf

48

Move About is the less expensive ownership model, regardless the number of

kilometres and the length of the contract. It can be explained by the method used to

calculate the costs based on the number of hours excluding the number of

kilometres. In the following Figure 24, the costs variation between a one hour and a

half day (12 hours) “renting” can be studied. The cost becomes quickly more expensive if the number of using hours increases. For instance, if there is a need to

have a vehicle during half a day for 167 days, the cost becomes significantly more

expensive than in the default model presented in the previous table.

Figure 24: Difference of NPV depending of the calculation period with Move About

A CSO like Move About appears to be adapted for people who need vehicles for a

few hours per week. In the same way, the different ownership models are adapted

to specific behaviour and needs. The cost represents these needs and the model

differences. Figure 25 shows that leasing can be profitable compared to private and

mixed ownership for the first four years, afterwards it becomes more expensive.

Better Place is also less expensive than private ownership for the first six years. In

contrast, car sharing companies remain the cheapest solutions by the distribution of

the costs between people.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

3 5 7 9 11 13

NP

V [

DK

K] T

ho

usa

nd

s

Renting period [yr.]

1 hour length renting 12 hours length renting

49

Figure 25: Costs of the different ownership model for different time period and 10,000 km per year

However, the second model of car sharing (Københavns Delebiler) can be highly

influenced by the number of kilometres driven per year, as seen in Figure 26. After

17,000 km per year and for a 10 years period, the car sharing costs of this company

become less profitable compared to the private ownership.

Figure 26: Influence of the annual driving distance on the ownership models' costs for a 10 years period

This analysis shows that a perfect ownership model is difficult to identify to Samsø‟s situation. They are adapted for different behaviours and needs. One ownership

model can be more expensive than another one after a certain amount of kilometres

or period. In general, private ownership is the cheapest solution for consumers who

are planning to use their EVs for a long term and are not willing or are not able to

share a car. Hence, through the following part, presenting the result of the survey in

Samsø, it will be possible to select which one can be mostly adapted to the current

situation.

0

200

400

600

800

1000

3 5 7 9 11 13

NP

V [

DK

K]

Th

ou

san

ds

Calculation period [yr.]

Private Better Place

ChoosEV Move About

Københavns Delebiler

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

10 000 15 000 20 000

NP

V [

DK

K]

Th

ou

san

ds

Annual driving distance [km]

Private Better Place ChoosEV

Move About Københavns Delebiler

50

5.3. Local opinions and requirements from Samsø

This part is split in two. The first one presents the result of the interviews while the

other one describes the result of the surveys.

5.3.1. Results of the interviews

In general, the energy experts of Samsø share an optimistic view about

implementing EVs and they consider this as a suitable solution for Samsø. According

to the opinion of the manager of the Energy Academy, Søren Steensgaard, a lot of

people in Samsø are ready for transition if it is affordable (Steensgaard 2011).

VEHICLE USAGE HABITS

According to the opinion of three members of the Energy Academy, people in Samsø

mostly use their vehicles (Steensgaard 2011) (Bestman 2011). The reasons are the

condition of the roads which is unfavourable for cyclists due to the icy roads in

winter, and the insufficient public transportation. Considering the registration tax in

Denmark, most of the drivers prefer buying second-hand vehicles, which can be an

issue when trying to sell new EVs (Bestman 2011). Some of the experts think that

EVs can be second vehicles in the households; as a matter of fact it is currently hard

to think of having only an EV, at least because of the long trip issue (Bestman

2011). In addition, the marginal cost of an EV is lower than a conventional vehicle,

thus the owners would prefer to use primarily their EV. Furthermore, the experts

agreed that the average kilometres driven per day in Samsø must be well below the

Danish average of 50 km per day. For instance Brian Kjaer uses his EV, besides his

conventional company vehicle, for 9 km per day (Kjaer 2011). According to Søren

Stensgaard„s opinion, 80 per cent of the transportation of the inhabitants is performed inside the island (Steensgaard 2011).

The opinions about car sharing varied. On one hand, sharing private or leased

electric/conventional vehicles can be a possibility, because it can solve financial

problems or even the problem of travelling out of the island. Furthermore, there are

already some people who indicated their intention to participate in car sharing

(Bestman 2011). On the other hand, there can be social barriers and insurance

problems with this solution.

ECONOMICS AND IMPLEMENTATION

Saving money is the most interesting aspect for the people and the municipality,

which has now some financial constraints. Therefore, the project could be successful

only if it could be profitable compared to the existing situation, otherwise the

municipality would not participate in it (Printzen 2011).

51

Some of the energy experts see private or public company and common, local

organization as possible investors, but the Energy Academy is not allowed to make

an investment itself (Steensgaard 2011). Most of the experts are not sympathetic to

the solution offered by Better Place. In general, they think about leasing as a

possible first step because it is safer as an investment when people do not trust the

technology.

Brian Kjaer indicated that there are several inhabitants who are interested in using

EVs. According to him, a demonstration is needed so that people can see EVs on the

roads every day and the reliability of the technology.

ABOUT THE PREVIOUS EV PROJECT

According to Jens Erik Printzen, the first EV project was a technical failure. Several

problems occurred to the vehicles which also had to be delivered to Aarhus for

repairing because there is no official EV technician in Samsø. Another major failure

of this EV implementation, in the elderly care, was the day and night use of the

vehicles for driving around 90-100 km per day, which prevented the full charge of

the vehicles. Finally, vehicles were sold after the 3-years leasing contract and their

opinion was that the technology was not mature enough (Printzen 2011).

5.3.2. Main results of the survey

Figure 27: General questions about the Samsø project (N=26, 2011)

The 26 respondents agree with the efforts related to the Samsø project (Figure 27),

but only around one third of them think that the transportation sector is problematic

and a change is needed. This fact could mean that the link between the sustainable

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

4. Would you be willing to change your habits tohelp to solve this problem?

3. Do you think that transportation in Samsøshould be changed to become sustainable?

2. Do you think that it is a problem that the cars inSamsø are still using oil?

1. Do you agree with the general ambition ofSamsø becoming a Renewable Energy Island?

Yes No I don't know

52

aims, environmental problems and the transportation sector‟s effect should be clarified. Moreover, more than two-third of the people asked were willing to change

their habits if needed, which is promising.

DRIVING HABITS

According to the 26 people‟s driving habits, in most of the cases (>90 per cent) private vehicles are used to travel; the second popular methods, biking and ferry,

are below 40 per cent each. More than 90 per cent of the car owners (or potential

car owners) use (or would use) their cars every day (75 per cent) or almost every

day (17 per cent). The private vehicles are mostly used to go to work or to go

shopping. In general (81 per cent), the respondents have one car with an average

age of 10 years; only one person has two and two people have no vehicle out of the

26 people. All these results emphasize the importance of vehicles in Samsø and the

dependence of the people towards them.

Figure 28: Survey result about annual driving distance in Samsø (N=26, two without answer, 2011)

An important data gained from the survey is the number of kilometres driven

annually (Figure 28). It can be seen that according to 24 people‟s driving habits, almost half of them are driving between 5,000 and 10,000 km per year, which

means on average maximum 27 km per day. Furthermore, more than 80 per cent of

them drive less than 15,000 km annually, which means on average maximum 41 km

per day.

ABOUT THE POSSIBLE OWNERSHIP OPTIONS

12%

46%

25%

17%

How many kilometres are you driving approximately per year?

< 5,000 km/year

5,000-10,000 km/year

11,000-15,000 km/year

> 15,000 km/year

53

Figure 29: Survey results about vehicle purchasing in Samsø (N=26, one did not answered, 2011)

As presented in Figure 29, 36 per cent of the interviewees are planning to buy a new

vehicle in the next 2 years. Furthermore, 64 per cent would buy an EV, but 88 per

cent of them only in case it is less expensive than a conventional vehicle. This

probably refers to the purchasing price for most of the consumers. In contrast, only

16 per cent of the respondents would lease an EV and 64 per cent of them refused

this option. Quite a high percentage (89 per cent) of the people has already heard

about car sharing, but 55 per cent would not share cars.

5.4. Ownership models and their applications in Samsø

Regarding part 5.1.1, an important question is how many vehicles would be

purchased by the local people. There are 2,173 families with 1,554 private vehicles

on the island in 2011, buying on average 33 new vehicles every year between 2006

and 2009 (Statistic Denmark 2011). They usually buy second hand vehicles

according to the interview with Lene Skafte Bestman (Bestman 2011) which are not

included in the previous data. Hopefully, after a campaign for EVs, people would buy

an EV.

Another issue is the difficulty for people to accept having only an EV as a family

vehicle. It can be assumed that the households will keep the conventional vehicles,

while primarily using their EV. Later, in case the EV works well for them, they will

have the opportunity to sell their conventional vehicle or change it also to electric.

However, the people‟s opinion so far shows that they would buy EVs, but mostly if it offers a financially acceptable option.

The mixed ownership with battery leasing, besides its advantages, causes a

dilemma; should the whole new EV system of the island lean on an external

company? The advantages of a large company, as services and infrastructure, can

turn to disadvantage in some situations, influencing the system adversely in Samsø

as well because of the (financial, technological etc.) dependency on them. In

addition, both the battery leasing operator companies and the customers must be in

a win-win situation to make the system financially working. But since these

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2. Would you buy an electric car?

1. Do you plan to buy a car in the next 2 years?

Yes Yes, if it is cheaper than a normal one (option only for question 2.) No I don't know

54

companies are innovators in the market, this includes a risk to the users as well,

because the profitability of these companies is in a quite narrow range, influenced by technical and economic factors like fuel prices (Li and Ouyang 2011). Furthermore,

the energy experts of Samsø also refused this option; leaning on one external

company in monopoly situation can cause financial disadvantages in the future.

Another question is whether or not this battery leasing company will install battery

swapping/charging stations on the island; the answer is probably negative due to

the limited population. In addition, due to the size of the island the users may not

even need battery swapping/charging stations.

Leasing provides people an option to “try out” EVs without any serious financial investments or consequences. It can be further improved from a societal and

financial point of view by sharing the leased cars. Another improvement could be

achieved through the establishment of a leasing company in Samsø. Although the

payment method of leasing could help the transition to a new technology, the people

who participated in the survey do not think leasing as possibility. Furthermore, the

existing leasing costs of an EV in Denmark are also currently high, but these might

decrease in the future, as the EV leasing market grows.

Organizing a car sharing system in Samsø seems difficult, but not impossible.

Although car sharing is typically used in large, dense cities, there are also successful

implementations in towns and rural areas, for example in Germany, Switzerland or

Austria (Millard-Ball, et al. 2005). In these cases, the organization has to be different

to meet the proper area‟s requirements. The key characteristics are also different

from the cities: personal involvement, acquaintance, more informal and cooperative

working methods. (Shaheen, Sperling and Wagner 1999) (Millard-Ball, et al. 2005).

Furthermore, it seems that in rural areas community support and volunteer

involvement are keys of success (Millard-Ball, et al. 2005).

In Samsø, there are only three towns with more than 200 inhabitants (Figure 25)

and only one town where the population is close to 1,000 (Statistic Denmark 2011).

The two-third of the population is living on the countryside. Considering this

distribution, two ways of working methods seem viable, when the recommended

density of 25 members per vehicle in a 5-minute radius (City CarShare 2005) cannot

be achieved in several places. While establishing the neighbourhood model, one

practice is used by “mother CSOs”, where the organisation establish a parking lot in

an area where there is interest for that (City CarShare 2005). The other solution is

close to an informal car sharing system between neighbours, with or without an

organisation. They can buy EVs together and use their conventional vehicles for

longer trips.

55

Figure 30: Distribution of inhabitants in Samsø by urban and rural areas (Statistic Denmark 2011)

Station cars are used for commuting, but in Samsø, only 10 per cent of the

employed people were commuting outside the island in 2008, and only 10 per cent

of the people commuting on the island are travelling more than 20 km to their

workplace (Statistic Denmark 2011). So this model might be applied for example

with a “station” in Tranebjerg and at the ferries harbour, in order to be available to the tourists coming to the island. But in general this system does not seem to be the

perfect choice for Samsø – it could be used by the tourists, but their number varies

throughout the year; or only by a part of the population.

Currently, data are missing to assess the viability of the multi-nodal model. If it turns

out that there are a few central points on the island, for example between the four

biggest cities, there is a potential to establish parking lots there. According to the

survey, 65 per cent of the respondents are travelling between Tranebjerg and

another destination, but this result is not representative, because most of the people

were asked in Tranebjerg.

According to the survey, few people are interested in car sharing but this result is

counterbalanced by Lene Skafte Bestman (Bestman 2011). With support, they might

be establishers of the first formal or informal car sharing system in Samsø. Both

from financial (no parking lots) and societal (stronger community) point of view, an

(almost) informal, member-organised neighbourhood car sharing system can be

recommended because of the strength Samsø is in the little local communities, with

people knowing each other.

Choosing the proper ownership model highly depends on the local people‟s opinion, their needs and driving habits. At this point of the analysis, the private ownership

and leasing seems to be the most suitable way for both a demonstration and a final

project as well. As for car sharing, helping the already interested people to establish

the first CSO according to their driving habits would be also an important step to

make a multi-sided EV system in Samsø, which can be used by most of the

inhabitants despite their different car usage needs.

Tranebjerg; 814

Onsbjerg; 247

Nordby; 232

Rural areas; 2 589

56

6. Implementation of EVs in Samsø

All the economic calculations, technical parts and ownership issues have been

discussed to lead to the implementation. The implementation explains how to

conduct a successful development of EVs in Samsø. A demonstration project is first

developed, and then the different research axes for the expansion of the EVs are

discussed. Finally, the current environmental impacts of the private vehicles fleet in

Samsø is described in order to assess the benefits that the implementation of EVs

will make in the island.

6.1. Demonstration project for EV technology

The demonstration project is an important part of the implementation of EVs in

Samsø. In fact, it represents the first step for a successful development of EVs. The

first EV project was a failure for two main reasons: costs and inadequate target

group, as explained in chapter 5.3.1. They mainly explain the reluctance of the

municipality to give another chance to EVs. However, it is possible to imagine that if

this project had been a success, the share of EVs in Samsø would currently be much

larger. For this reason, it is important to study and analyse a possible solution for the

development of a new demonstration project. The purpose of this new project will be

to show the evolution of the technology since the last project and its profitability

compared to conventional vehicles, as well as decreasing the GHG emissions.

The first idea was to deal with the rental vehicle company and the tourists as target

group but their short staying time on the island is an issue and no viable solution has

been found. Their case will be discussed later in this chapter. By understanding the

needs of presenting a successful demonstration project visible all year long and

adapted to the EVs technology, the idea of the post office came up. Post Danmark

delivers mails six times a week to the inhabitants of Samsø, during the whole year.

Hence, the visibility of vehicles, running on Samsø roads, is ensured. Moreover, it

appears that Post Danmark is interested in the implementation of a sustainable way

to deliver mails (brightignite.dk 2010). Posten AB, the Swedish postal service,

associated to the Danish Postal Service in 2009 has already around 2,800 EVs in its

mail delivery operation (Postnord 2011). Hence, the replacement of the postal

conventional vehicles by EVs should not be risky for Post Danmark and will be in

accordance to their environmental policy.

This demonstration project needs some involvement, for instance from the Energy

Academy, to present the idea to Post Danmark and therefore to follow the project. In

fact, the main issue of this project is the timeframe. Considering the goal of reaching

an EV share of 50 per cent by 2021 in Samsø, the demonstration project has to be

developed and operable quickly in the following years in order to achieve its purpose

and help in reaching this goal of further implementation.

57

The economic feasibility analysis of introducing EVs for the Post Danmark car fleet,

based on Samsø, has been realized. The figures, adopted from ChoosEV, show that

leasing EVs is cheaper for companies than for private consumers because of the

reduced taxes (Petersen 2011). Post Danmark Leasing, which is a part of Post

Danmark, is responsible for leasing the vehicles to Post Danmark and is its only

customer (Post Danmark 2011). Post Danmark of Samsø uses eight vehicles, which

run every day except Sunday to deliver the mails around the island. This means that

the cars run approximately 312 days annually. Every vehicle runs a daily distance of

51 km, resulting in a distance of 15,912 km for each vehicle per year (Dudmish

2011). In order to assess the cost of the replacement of Post Danmark car fleet in

Samsø, a cost comparison is conducted between the current leasing costs and

leasing costs for EVs.

The leasing price for EV is 5,500 DKK per month, adopted from the company

ChoosEV for a Peugeot Partner running less than 15,000 km per year (Petersen

2011) and this number is used despite the fact that the kilometres are slightly more

as described before (15,912 km). This includes the electricity and the charging

places. As there is no charging station in Samsø, Post Danmark will also have to

purchase or lease the charging spots for 479 DKK per month. The annual leasing

costs incurred by Post Danmark are 25,000 DKK for each vehicle including the O&M

services. The vehicles run on diesel and the consumption is 10 DKK per litre. The

diesel price is adopted from the economic analysis; 11.3 DKK per litre. The insurance

is assumed to be included in the prices is adopted from the economic analysis as

well; 12,000 DKK per year. The NPV is calculated after five years using a 4.5 per cent

discount rate. All the costs are presented in Table 13.

Table 13: Comparison of leasing; electric and conventional vehicles for five years

Peugeot Partner (ChoosEV) Conventional Post Danmark vehicle

Annual driving costs for 15,000km [DKK] 66,000 25,000

Annual costs for subscribing [DKK] 5,748 -

Insurance cost [DKK/yr.] 12,000 12,000

O&M costs [DKK/yr.] Included Included

Fuel consumption [km/kWh] or [km/l] Included 10

Fuel price [DKK/kWh] or [DKK/l] Included 11.3

Fuel price for 15,912 km [DKK] Included 17,981

Annual total costs [DKK] 83,748 45,893

NPV [DKK] 367,551 201,467

As it can be seen, after making the calculations for five years, the EV solution is

around 82 per cent more expensive than the conventional solution. But it should be

noticed that, these figures need to be taken into consideration carefully, as the EV

case is based on the numbers taken from ChoosEV and for Post Danmark in Samsø

the EV situation should be much more different with adjusted lower leasing prices or

58

with more data about the leasing company of Post Danmark. In fact, there is no

information stating that Post Danmark leasing company is a profit oriented company,

thus it can explain this cost difference. For the development of this demonstration

project in a short term range, the important point is to establish the possibility for

Post Danmark to get the same range of costs for EVs than for conventional vehicles.

6.2. Expansion of the fleet

The success of the expansion of the EV fleet depends on the possibility to build

charging infrastructure on the island, thus a quick overview of the possible charging

infrastructure is first presented. Though the demonstration project is expected to

convince at least some people to purchase an EV, the real ambition of Samsø to

become 100 per cent sustainable island depends also on the rest of its people to

consider EV as a mean of their private transportation. Hence, some incentive ideas in

order to lower the EV prices are discussed.

6.2.1. Charging infrastructure

The increasing number of EVs will raise the issue of charging stations, which will

have to be built on the island. This part describes the different possibilities of

charging stations, considering the costs and the driving habits of the local people,

assessing the most suitable choice for Samsø‟s case.

A study has been made in 2010 by the city of London regarding the implementation

of charging stations in the city. According to this study, the charging stations can be

classified into three different groups: the on-street public shared (A), the off-street

public/private shared (B) and the off-street private not-shared (C) (London 2010).

The on-street public shared stations are built in-between the sidewalks and the

parking places, in the same way as parking meters. Off-street shared stations are

located in parking places, which can be public (grocery stores) or private (buildings).

Finally, off-street private not-shared are found in private houses or garages, they are

also called home spot. Two examples of off-street and on-street are shown in Figure

31.

Figure 31: Example of off-street and on-street charging stations (Hewreck 2010) (Inhabitat 2010)

59

The costs are significantly different from one group to another and are shown in

Table 14.

Table 14: Costs of different types of charging stations (London 2010)

Stations A B C Approx. costs [DKK] 82,500 15,000-71,250 6,000-10,500 Approx. Iosts ぷ€へ 11,000 2,000-9,500 800-1,400

The costs for on-street devices (A) are around ten times higher than private not-

shared stations (C). Concerning off-street public/private stations (B), the costs can

vary a lot, but are situated in-between the two other types.

The costs of the stations depend also on the technology, which is related to the

charging time. For conventional charging or slow charging, the charging time can

vary between 30 minutes to 20 hours for a 40 kWh battery, depending notably on

the type of battery, the voltage and the current (Sisternes 2010). Concerning the Li-

ion battery, the charging time for a 24 kWh is between 6 and 8 hours, using a 220 V

socket (MygreenWheels 2010). In addition, fast charging is expected to have really

short charging time, in the same range as conventional gasoline tank charging

(Sisternes 2010). Fast charging is able to charge a 24 kWh Li-ion battery from 0 to

80 per cent in around 15 minutes (Think 2010). These figures are supported by Bo

Petersen, the marketing director of ChoosEV, who states that the battery can be

charged for 100 km in 15 minutes (Petersen 2011). However, the way of charging

220 V or 440 V has a direct influence on the battery lifetime. If the fast charging

solution (440 V) is preferred the loss can be expected 10 per cent more than using

the 220 V charging solution (hybridCARS 2010). A report, written in 2009 for the

Committee on Climate Change, states that the costs for fast charging stations are

way more expensive than those for slow stations (Energy Element 2009). According

to the study, the costs are between 450,000 DKK (60,000 €) and 900,000 DKK

(120,000 €), depending especially on the necessity of grid reinforcement (Energy

Element 2009). This is partly due to the power required to charge the battery, which

is significantly higher for fast charging than for slow charging (Sisternes 2010).

It is noticeable that on-street charging stations with fast charging are far more

expensive than private charging stations with slow charging. Their implementation

would bring large investment costs, which could be shared between different actors

such as the inhabitants or the municipality. It is essential to assess the utility of

implementing charging spots in public areas. In order to do that, the parked time of

the vehicles in every place has to be assumed. In Figure 32, the assumptions made

from the observations in Samsø, in front of two supermarkets during three hours, are

summarized. For example, Samsø does not have any shopping centres or large

supermarkets where people usually spend a lot of time. Plus, it is more into the

Danish habits to go often to the grocery store, almost once every two days and not

staying there long. The work time is 7.4, which corresponds to 37 hours a week

60

divided in 5 working days. The time at home is 9 hours, between 10:30 pm and 7:30

am. It is assumed to be the longest time at home during a day, though the people

generally return back home at around 6 pm.

Figure 32: Assumptions on the longest time parked at destination on average during weekdays in Samsø

It can be seen on Figure 32 that except the two first bars (work and home), the time

when the vehicles are parked is between 30 minutes and 2 hours and a half. The

chart highlights that slow charging stations in public parking lots or street parking

spaces are not appropriate. In those places, only fast charging stations could provide

enough power for the vehicles to be useful.

The frequency to be parked at home and work is high while at the other places there

are large variations. Considering the daily routine, the charging time of the batteries,

the behaviour of the people and the costs of the charging stations, it can be

concluded that building shared charging stations in Samsø are not essential for the

beginning. It is expected that the people would buy vehicles independently, thus the

easiest way for them is to install home spots. In certain areas, if several neighbours

are interested in buying or sharing EVs, charging spot(s) could be shared and so

could the investment. According to the results of the survey, 58 per cent of people

say to drive less 10,000 km a year, thus less than 28 km a day, which means that

around five households can use the same home spot if they are well organized. The

interview from Brian Kjaer who charges his EV once a week also supports this

assumption. In that way, the investment for home spot is rather small compared to

the vehicle cost. Using the figures mentioned in Table 14, the prices would be

around 2,100 DKK maximum if five people can share the spot. Using the cost of the

Nissan Leaf given in chapter 4 about the cost comparison (244,651 DKK), the

investment of the home spot represents slightly less than one per cent of the total

investment cost.

7,4

9

0,5

1,5

2,5 2,5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Work Home Foodshopping

Non-foodshopping

Visit friends Freetime (cinema,

puH…ぶ

Ho

urs

[h

]

61

However, public stations could help the people to cut the first investment, because

they do not have to pay for the home spot. The implementation of on-street

charging stations can also be considered in the long term when the number of EVs

grows on the island, for example with the introduction of renting EVs for the tourists,

which will be discussed later on this chapter. The success of the demonstration

project as well as the implication of the municipality and the community will

determine the future development.

Finally, the standardization of the plugs is also a current issue for implementing EVs.

Hence, it could be a hindrance for consumers to buy a vehicle which cannot be

charged everywhere but also for manufacturers for economic reasons. To overcome

such problems, the European Union decide to choose a standard during summer

2011. However, some countries are arguing against the current solution proposed

by Germany and it will maybe take a bit longer to take a final decision (EurActiv.com

2011). From a consumer point of view, it is probably a wise decision to wait for an

EU standard before purchasing an electric vehicle if there is a need to use charging

facilities different from the home spot.

6.2.2. Wind shares connected to EVs

An ownership model has been developed to support the implementation and provide

some purchasing opportunities for people investing in renewable energy. The main

idea is to link the purchase of wind turbine shares with the purchase of an EV. As a

matter of fact, a new offshore wind farm project is currently under discussion in

Samsø (VAB 2011). It is certain that the people in the island realized that with the

current incentives from the Danish government and the loan offered by the local

bank, the purchase of a wind turbine share is a good investment. The interview with

Jørgen Tranberg (Tranberg 2011) supports this statement. When people want to buy

shares and earn money from selling electricity, they also have the option of

participating to the transition of the transportation sector by purchasing an EV. The

person who wants to have a share of the new offshore wind turbines and buy a new

vehicle will have the choice between two options buying wind turbine shares

combined with EV, shared or not.

In order to assess the costs, some assumptions have been made using the result

proposed by the website vaab.dk, which deals with wind farm projects in Aarhus

area (VAB 2011). The total cost of the offshore wind farm is divided in shares, which

corresponds to a production of 1,000 kWh each. Local people and companies have

the possibility to purchase one or several shares. The cost of one share is fixed at

around 6,600 DKK (VAB 2011). The income depends on the number of shares, the

price of electricity, the O&M and the tax. The price of electricity is fixed to 0.85 DKK

per kilowatt-hour and the O&M to 0.11 DKK per kilowatt-hour. The taxation is

calculated considering a basic allowance of 7,000 DKK and a tax of 45 per cent on

62

the 60 per cent taxable amount. It means that if the income is superior to 7,000

DKK, taxes will be paid on 60 per cent of the difference, which represents the taxable

amount.

For example, a person has nine shares for a total cost of 59,400 DKK. The expected

production is 9,000 kWh per year with a price of 0.85 DKK per kilowatt-hour, the

gross income is 7,650 DKK. Then, the tax is applied on the difference between the

income and the basic allowance. Hence, the net income is the result of the

subtraction of the income by the tax and the O&M which represents 990 DKK. The

expected net income is 6,485 DKK per year.

Then the income per year is:

During the first years, this income may be used to pay back a loan at the bank and

at the same time the cost of the vehicle. On one hand, it will take more time to start

earning money with this solution but in the other hand the cost of the vehicles will be

entirely covered by the income from selling electricity.

The advantage of this ownership model could be the possibility of having access to a

loan with a low interest rate from a bank. In fact, the bank will receive the guarantee

of a repayment every month by selling the electricity production. This could be

proposed when the number of shares purchased is large enough to allow a payback

time lower than the lifetime of a wind turbine. This statement has to be verified.

Foremost, discussion with the bank has to be done to facilitate the acceptance of this

kind of loan, as it has been done for the previous wind turbine projects in Samsø

(Tranberg 2011). Hence, the discount rate is fixed at 1.0 per cent in this analysis and

not at 4.5 as in the previous economic study.

In the following figures some cases are presented, showing the net present value

(NPV) including taxes for different number of shares for the three following cases:

without purchasing a vehicle (Figure 33), with purchasing a vehicle (Figure 34) and

with purchasing a vehicle shared by three households (Figure 35). Figure 33 shows

that, for a number of shares between 30 and 180, the payback time is between 12

and 14 years. It is noticeable that the payback time is almost the same, whatever the

number of shares is.

63

Figure 33: NPV in function of time period for 3 types of shares without vehicle

In the case of shareholders also purchasing a vehicle, it is important to notice that it

can be profitable only with a certain number of shares as seen in Figure 34. With 90

shares, the investment is only paid back after 19 years which can be considered as

long as regarding the 20-years lifetime of a wind turbine. However, the more the

number of shares increases, the more the payback time decreases. When there are

180 shares, the payback time is 17 years, thus it can be interesting to purchase a

vehicle while buying wind turbine shares.

Figure 34: NPV in function of the time period for 3 types of shares with vehicle

In the case of Figure 35, the repartition of the EV cost between people allows having

a payback time lower than the wind turbine lifetime. With an investment around

675,000 DKK, corresponding to 90 shares plus 1/3 of a vehicle, the payback time is

around 14 years. The payback time is also decreasing with the increase of the

number of shares purchased. This solution can be considered as the best for people

-1400000

-1200000

-1000000

-800000

-600000

-400000

-200000

0

200000

400000

600000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

NP

V [

DK

K]

Time period [yr.]

NPV 30 shares NPV 90 shares NPV 180 shares

-1600000

-1400000

-1200000

-1000000

-800000

-600000

-400000

-200000

0

200000

400000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

NP

V [

DK

K]

Time period [yr.]

NPV 30 shares NPV 90 shares NPV 180 shares

64

who consider purchasing a new vehicle and are ready to share it. The difficulty will

be to propose an adapted system of car sharing. Moreover, in this example the cost

of the vehicle has been shared in three but some other scenarios can be considered

with 2, 4 or more co-owners.

Figure 35: NPV in function of time period for 3 types of shares with shared vehicle between three people

Another idea is to increase the cost of the shares to provide subsidies for the

purchasing of EVs, for example for the first one hundred EVs. The extra money from

the wind farm shares will go to a fund which will be used to lower the costs of

purchasing the EVs. The characteristics of the wind farm are the following: 20 wind

turbines, with a capacity of 5 MW per turbine. Using the same production per

capacity as for the first offshore wind farm in Samsø, it corresponds to an overall

production of 336,957 MWh per year. As said previously, a share corresponds to a

production of 1,000 kWh per year. Hence, the entire wind farm can be divided in

337,000 shares.

The purpose is to decrease the purchasing cost of a vehicle from 244,651 DKK to

180,000 DKK. Hence, it corresponds to a decrease of 64,651 DKK per vehicle. If the

subsidies are used for 100 vehicles, the amount of money requested is 6,465,100

DKK, which represents only 19 DKK per share. Hence, the price of each share of

wind turbine will rise from 6,600 DKK to 6,619 DKK. Table 15 below shows the

difference between the investment costs depending on the number of shares, with

and without the subsidies for EVs.

Table 15: Investment costs with and without the subsidies

Investment without subsidies Investment with subsidies 30 shares [DKK] 198,000 198,570 90 shares [DKK] 594,000 595,510 180 shares [DKK] 1,188,000 1,191,420

-1400000

-1200000

-1000000

-800000

-600000

-400000

-200000

0

200000

400000

600000

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

NP

V [

DK

K]

Time period [yr.]

NPV 30 shares NPV 90 shares NPV 180 shares

65

As it can be seen, according to the number of shares, the increase in the prices is

insignificant. In fact, it represents only slightly less than 0.3 per cent of the total

price. The payback time showed above will almost not change either. Using these

subsidies, the cost of purchasing a vehicle will drop by 26.4 per cent, from 244,651

DKK to 180,000 DKK. Moreover, if the people are willing to test the system by

sharing the vehicle between three people, they will have to pay only 60,000 DKK.

Another idea could be to ask the company building the wind turbines, to invest a part

of the project‟s cost in subsidies for the people purchasing EVs. Using the same

discount in the EV cost as the previous paragraph, the investment for the company

will be 6,465,100 DKK. Even though it seems to be a high price, it represents only

slightly less than 0.3 per cent of the total project cost. Moreover, the implementation

of EVs will raise on the long run the electricity demand and thus, it will help the

development of wind farms. It is also good for the image of the companies to get

involved in such an environmental friendly project. In another way, the amount of

money earned from one of these subsidy methods can be used to buy 26 EVs, which

can be leased/rent to the people in Samsø by a non-profit organization. In this case,

people who are not buying wind turbine shares can be able to use EVs.

6.2.3. Market regulations to lower electricity prices in charging

stations

Even though, it has been discussed before that charging stations are not essential for

the beginning of the implementation, charging stations providing free electricity

could participate to the success of the project, and can, for example, be used by the

tourists with rental vehicles.

Currently, the electricity produced from offshore wind turbines is sold at a fixed price

to EnergiNET, the public Transmission System Operator (TSO) in Denmark,

corresponding to 0.85 DKK per kWh (EnergiNET 2011). Then, the TSO sells the

electricity by biding on the NordPool. The prices at which the electricity is sold on the

NordPool market are usually lower than the feed-in tariffs (EMD 2011). For example,

as it is illustrated in Figure 36 the spot prices on the NordPool market on Monday the

28th of March went from 0.225 DKK per kWh at around 1 am to 0.5 DKK per kWh at

8 am and 7 pm (EMD 2011).

66

Figure 36: Spot prices on NordPool market (EMD 2011)

In order to get a part of the money invested in the feed-in tariffs, the government

currently apply taxes on the electricity bought on NordPool. Therefore, the electricity

is sold at a fixed price to the consumers. Hence, the taxes fluctuate according to the

spot prices on NordPool market, in order to assure a fixed price to the consumer.

The idea is to propose fluctuating prices to the consumers and encourage them to

charge their EVs when the demand is low, for example usually during the night. It

would also allow using the excess electricity produced during the night, which is

usually sold very cheap to NorpPool. To develop this idea, EnergiNET has to provide

charging stations in Samsø connected to the NordPool market which provide

electricity without any taxes. Hence, the prices will be lower for the people and the

benefits compared to diesel or gasoline running vehicles much higher. Figure 37

presents the costs of running diesel, gasoline and electric vehicles with three annual

driving lengths, 5,000, 10,000 and 15,000 km per year. Three different electricity

prices have been used, 1.8 DKK per kWh is the average electricity price in Denmark

in 2010 (EU 2011), 0.5 DKK per kWh is the highest price on NordPool market the

28th of March and 0,225 DKK per kWh is the lowest, as seen in Figure 36.

67

Figure 37: Fuel costs for diesel, gasoline and electric vehicles with different electricity prices

As can be seen Figure 37, the difference is already significant between the 3

different electricity prices, from 1 to 8 between the lowest price in the NordPool and

the current price. This represents for a driver using a vehicle 15,000 km per year a

saving of 3,860 DKK per year. Comparing to diesel prices, the factor is from 1 to 17,

which represents a saving of 8,700 DKK per year. Comparing to gasoline prices, the

factor is from 1 to 23 which represents 11,800 DKK per year.

This system could definitively let people realize the savings that can be done with

EVs, also according to their purchasing costs which is also less expensive than

conventional vehicles (chapter 4). To realize this, EnergiNET has to be contacted and

negotiations have to be made between the different actors of the project.

These incentives should lead to a total replacement of the vehicle fleet by 2030. In

the next part the impact on the GHG emission of this transition compared to the

current situation is presented.

6.3. Environmental consequences

In this part, an analysis of the environmental impacts of the conventional vehicle is

conducted in ordser to assess the potential improvements concerning greenhouse

gas (GHG) emissions by the implementation of EVs. As mentioned in the

Introduction, chapter 1, the transportation sector is responsible for more than 78 per

cent of the CO2 emissions in Samsø and private vehicles are responsible for 25 per

cent of them, as seen in Figure 38.

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

5,000 km 10,000 km 15,000 km

Fu

el

cost

s p

er

ye

ar

[DK

K/y

r.]

EV 0.225

EV 0.5

EV 1.8

Diesel

Gasoline

68

Figure 38: Distribution of the CO2 emissions per means of transportation in Samsø (Tambjerg 2009)

In order to conduct a more detailed study concerning the GHG emissions, the use of

LEAP software has been chosen. The reference scenario is based on data from 2010

(Statistic Denmark 2011). It includes the number of vehicles in Samsø in 2010, the

distribution of the vehicles according to their age (Figure 39), the share between

gasoline and diesel fuels (Figure 40) as well as the average efficiency according to

their age (Figure 41). Data extrapolation has been done when some data were

missing.

Figure 39: Distribution of the cars per age in Denmark (Statistic

Denmark 2011)

Figure 40: Distribution between gasoline and

diesel in Denmark in 2010 (Statistic Denmark 2011)

25%

2%

21%

13%

9%

30%

Cars Buses Trucks/trailers Tractors Flights Ships

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Pe

rce

nta

ge

[%

]

Existing car stocks profile

76%

24%

Gasoline Diesel

69

Figure 41: Efficiency of gasoline and diesel vehicles per years in Denmark (Statistic Denmark 2011)

For this analysis, these previous data and the International Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC) tier 1 database including the GHG emissions per type of fuel are used. The

IPCC tier 1 database corresponds to the simplest method of calculation for the GHG

emissions. Then LEAP is able to manage the calculation of the GHG emissions for the

private vehicle sector in Samsø. It shows that the private vehiclesector is responsible

of the emissions of 2,763.2 tonnes of CO2 equivalent distributed between carbon

dioxide, carbon monoxide and other GHGs such as methane and NOx, as presented

in Figure 42.

Figure 42: GHG emissions due to private vehicle sector in Samsø in 2010

The production of CO2-free electricity in Samsø allows subtracting the vehicle

emissions to the total GHG emissions. Hence, the implementation of EVs will allow

decreasing those emissions, which represents 25 per cent of the whole emissions.

However, it is a first step towards a sustainable transportation. The transition of the

other transportation sectors on the island is discussed later in the perspectives part.

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Eff

icie

ncy

[l/

10

0 k

m]

Diesel efficiency Gasoline efficiency

235 69,2

2459

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Conventional

To

nn

es

of

CO

E e

qu

iva

len

t [t

]

Carbon Monoxide Others (CH4/NOx/etc) Carbon Dioxide Non Biogenic

70

7. Conclusion

How can electric vehicles be implemented in an economically beneficial

way in Samsø, promoting the creation of a real sustainable island?

As defined in the research question above, the report aims at assessing the

implementation of EVs in the island of Samsø. Regarding the GHG emissions

produced by the transportation sector in the island, there is no doubt that the next

step to change the island to 100 per cent sustainable, is by making a transition in

this sector. The large excess electricity from the wind farms suits well the decision to

replace the private conventional vehicles by EVs.

The different EV technologies present on the market are numerous. The feasibility

study highlighted the difference between these technologies and the analysis pointed

out that BEVs are more suitable than PHEVs. This is mainly due to the battery

capacity, which enables the vehicle to run on the electric motor up to 40 kilometres

or run on conventional fuel. Also, the advantages of the PHEVs do not match with

the requests of Samsø case and are currently far more expensive than BEVs. The

introduction of V2Gs is also compared to traditional EVs, and both the battery

lifespan comparison and the import-export analysis show that EVs are more

convenient for the Samsø case. As a matter of fact, the battery lifespan for an EV in

normal use is almost double of a V2G battery used for ancillary services and covering

demand. Besides, the introduction of EVs will have a positive impact on the excess

electricity, with a decrease of about 6 per cent if the whole fleet is replaced. It will

also reduce the electricity import from the mainland, if the charging intervals are well

organized. The technology of the EV battery is mature enough today to be

implemented and suitable for the island of Samsø.

The economic comparison between purchasing conventional or electric vehicles,

considering the policy framework as well, proved that EVs are economically viable in

Denmark with the current tax exclusion. Hence, 40 øre are saved for every kilometre

driven using an EV instead of a conventional vehicle, which represents a discount of

15 per cent. This cost difference is expected to increase in years to come due to the

rising fuel prices.

The lack of trust in the technology from the previous project makes the inhabitants

still reluctant to purchase a vehicle on their own. In order to deal with that, different

ownership models are analyzed and their current costs are compared. Considering

the different driving patterns and preferences, there are several ownership

recommendations according to the payment method, timeframe and driving

intensity. However, car sharing could help in reducing the costs significantly, but it

can be related to the annual driving distance; private ownership offers a financially

viable long-term solution; and leasing seems more suitable for people who do not

71

want to invest a large amount of money initially, but plan to use an EV for less than

four years.

The importance of local ownership is essential to increase the acceptance of new

technologies. People are usually ready to accept a technology, when they can own a

part of it, and earn money. This statement is also valid for EVs. Hence, it seems a

better choice to rely on local investments and not on one external company, such as

Better Place. In that case, the success of the project would depend a lot on the

reliability of the company.

The study trip to Samsø had the purpose of meeting the competent people of the

Energy Academy and Samsø‟s inhabitants to get their opinions about the project and also to conduct a survey on their driving habits and expectations. The results

highlight the short average driving range of the inhabitants; almost 60 per cent of

them drive less than 27 kilometres a day. The importance of the EV costs is also

underlined, as 88 per cent of the people interested in buying an EV would do it only

if it is cheaper compared to conventional vehicles.

The feasibility studies and the results from the study trip show that the

implementation of EVs can succeed in this area. Therefore, a demonstration project

involving Post Denmark is proposed, to show the reliability of the technology to the

people. If EV leasing is the chosen ownership model, special costs have to be

negotiated with a leasing company to make the project financially viable. After this

project, some recommendations are developed to enlarge the network of EVs.

Regarding the driving habits and the current costs of fast charging stations, the slow

charging home spots are the charging stations, which are the most suitable for the

beginning of the implementation in Samsø. Besides, a new kind of ownership linking

the purchase of wind turbine shares with an individual or shared EV is discussed.

Moreover, proposing the electricity prices of NordPool in the charging stations could

decrease the marginal costs. As an example, charging the EV during the night could

cut 87 per cent of the charging costs. Finally, the total replacement of the private

vehicles in Samsø by EVs will save around 2,800 tonnes of CO2 equivalent every

year.

7.1. Perspectives

The large amount of tourists who drive on Samsø‟s roads every summer is an environmental issue raised by the Energy Academy and supported by the result of

the interview with Lene Skafte Bestman. There are on average around 2,000 tourists

on the island during the three summer months. This amount can reach 10,000 during

Samsø‟s music festival, at the end of July, which results in a large amount of

polluting vehicles on the island. The project of EVs implementation in Samsø will

have to deal with this issue soon or later. Tourists will have to participate, one way

72

or another, to the project and stop driving conventional vehicles on the island in a

medium term period. Moreover, the “green island” image is one of the attractions of Samsø, thus it is guessed that some tourists will be willing to participate in it. The

possibility of renting EVs to the tourists has been screened, but some issues have

been identified. Firstly, the only rental company in Samsø is not currently interested

in purchasing EVs (Biludlejning 2011). The registration tax (chapter 4) is not paid by

the rental companies for conventional vehicles. Due to this, there is no advantage for

them to purchase EVs. For instance, the costs with all taxes excluded are 166,980

DKK (22,264€) for the Toyota Avensis running on diesel and 244,651 DKK (32,620€) for the Nissan Leaf. Hence, the price of the Nissan Leaf is 46 per cent higher than

the Toyota which can explain the reluctance of the rental company. This position

may change in few years if the demonstration project is implemented successfully.

Secondly, the rental of EVs on the island would surely need public-shared charging

stations, especially in the places where tourists stay such as camping places or

hotels. As seen in chapter 6.2.1, these charging stations are very expensive and

would raise the investment costs.

As seen in the chapter 6.3, the replacement of private vehicles will save 25 per cent

of the GHG emissions on the island. Considering the goal to be 100 per cent

renewable, the ferries, which represent 30 per cent of the emissions, need to be

changed. Regarding the weight of the ships and their hourly routines, the battery

density and its charging time are hard to be adapted to run an electric ferry. The

solution could come from biofuel or biogas. Samsø is an agricultural area, which

represents a large source for biogas, for example using the crops or the manure from

animals. Furthermore, some projects about ferries running on biogas have already

been done in Sweden, and the technology is mature enough (Kristoffersen 2010).

This possibility can also be applied for buses, as projects have already been done for

example in Lille, France, where 50 per cent of the municipal bus fleet runs on biogas

(SetterTrend 2003). The municipality claims that the costs per kilometre are

equivalent to conventional buses, with a potential positive environmental impact. The

project is a success. Therefore, they plan to have 100 per cent of the fleet running

on biogas for 2015 (SetterTrend 2003). The Samsø Energy Academy has a plan for

an electric bus, which will start running from next year during summer time. The

truck and trailers, which represents a large share of emissions, 31 per cent, could

also be replaced by biofuel or biogas. However, further calculation will be needed to

assess the economic feasibility of such projects and to be sure that the potential is

large enough in Samsø. Otherwise, it would lead to dependence on biomass.

A recent trend is to invest in hydrogen, but it has been argue that the hydrogen does

not have as much potential as the electricity for transportation matters, considering

for instance the volume of the engine, the efficiency and high pressure issues

(Ruppert 2003). The only advantage of hydrogen technology is the quick filling time,

73

which takes 5-15 minutes (Fuel Cells 2009), but the improvements of electric fast

charging make the EVs charging time almost the same. The swapping stations also

allow changing to a full battery in less than five minutes (Better Place 2011). Unlike

the Californian government, the Danish government chose the EV over the hydrogen

vehicle.

The size of the island, the driving habits of the inhabitants and the green conscience

of some of them ease the EV implementation. However, this kind of project is

expected to be spread in other regions and countries. A lot of areas have shown

motivation to research in sustainable transportation, and a successful project in

Samsø could only reinforce this willingness. For all these different cases, the same

levers have to be applied for a successful implementation. First, the implication of

the government is essential for the success. As for Denmark, regarding the current

state-of-the-art of EVs, incentives are essential to make the purchasing of EVs

economically viable. In the long run, the new technologies and the mass production

of EVs by different manufacturers will lower the costs and thus taxes will be imposed

on them. If the introduction of EV widely occurs, there will be less oil importation,

thus leading to loss of revenue. Those are facts that government has to take into

consideration.

To achieve a sustainable way of transportation, the electricity production has to

come from renewable sources, such as the wind power in Samsø. The introduction of

EV in countries which electricity production comes mainly from fossil fuel would make

the project to lose its main objective. In the best case, their implementation could

also be a benefit for the introduction of fluctuating renewable energy sources such as

solar or wind power, regarding the possibility to raise its usage. Hence, to achieve a

decrease of GHG emissions, the implementation of EVs has to be linked with the

development of sustainable energy systems in the area.

74

Bibliography

Ahﾏad Pesaヴaﾐ, Toﾐy Maヴkel. さBatteヴy Reケuiヴeﾏeﾐts aﾐd Iost-benefit analysis for plug in hybrid

┗ehiIles.ざ ヲヰヰΑ.

Albertslund Delebil. Prisliste for Albertslund Delebil. 2011. http://www.albertslund-delebil.dk/.

Århus Delebilklub. Forbrugspriser. 2011. http://www.aarhus-delebilklub.dk/priserbilermv.htm.

Autoflotte. Gute Zahlen für 2010. 2011. http://www.autoflotte.de/gute-zahlen-fuer-2010-

1007058.html.

Baヴth, Matthe┘, aﾐd “usaﾐ “haheeﾐ. さ“haヴed-Use Vehicle Systems: A Framework for Classifying

Caヴshaヴiﾐg, “tatioﾐ Caヴs, aﾐd CoﾏHiﾐed AppヴoaIhes.ざ Transportation Research Record Vol.

1791, 2002: 105-112.

Bestman, Lene Skafte, interview by group. (2011).

Betteヴ plaIe. さTotaloﾏkostﾐiﾐgeヴ -elHil/tヴaditioﾐel Hil.ざ http://danmark.betterplace.com. 2010.

http://danmark.betterplace.com/dyn/Normalpage/0/50/Normalpage_Section/file/238/1299

603207/totalomkostninger.pdf (accessed 2011).

Betteヴ PlaIe. さTotaloﾏkostﾐiﾐgeヴ -elHil/tヴaditioﾐel Hil.ざ http://danmark.betterplace.com. 2010.

http://danmark.betterplace.com/dyn/Normalpage/0/50/Normalpage_Section/file/238/1299

603207/totalomkostninger.pdf (accessed 2011).

—. さVejledeﾐde pヴisliste.ざ http://danmark.betterplace.com. March 2011.

http://danmark.betterplace.com/dyn/Normalpage/2/72/Normalpage_Section/file/248/1299

751393/better-place_prisliste_udskifteligt-batteri.pdf (accessed 2011).

BetterPlace. Better Place International website. 2011. http://www.betterplace.com/.

brightignite.dk. 2010.

http://brightignite.dk/fileadmin/templates/pages/pdfer/Press_Release_about_SAFE_Urban_

Logistics.pdf.

Bryggebilen. Priser. 2009. http://www.bryggebilen.dk/priser.html.

Burbank, City of. Green Energy _ plug in hybrid electric vehicle. 2011.

http://www.burbankwaterandpower.com/index.php/electric-vehicles#2.

California, Center for sustainable Energy of. 2010. https://energycenter.org/index.php/technical-

assistance/transportation/electric-vehicles.

Chevrolet. 2011. http://www.chevrolet.com/volt/.

ChoosEV. ChoosEV homepage. 2011. http://www.choosev.com/ (accessed 2011).

ChoosEV Int. ChoosEV International homepage. 2011. http://www.choosev.com/ (accessed 2011).

75

City CarShare. Bringing Car-Sharing to Your Community. Guide, available online

(http://www.citycarshare.org/download/CCS_BCCtYC_Long.pdf), City CarShare, 2005.

ConsumerPla.net. TheBlog@ConsumerPla.net. 2011. http://blog.consumerpla.net/2011/04/prolong-

laptop-batteries-life.html.

De Danske Bilimportører. Statistik. 2010. http://www.bilimp.dk/statistics/index.asp (accessed 2011).

Denmark.dk. Denmark.dk - the official website of Denmark. 2010.

http://www.denmark.dk/en/servicemenu/News/Environment-Energy-Climate-

News/DenmarksEVAspirationsFantasyProjectOrRealisticAim.

Dudmish, Jim, interview by SEPM 73. (2011).

Electropedia. Battery and Energy Technologies. 2005. http://www.mpoweruk.com/life.htm.

EMD. 2011. http://www.emd.dk/el/.

EnergiNET. energinet.dk. 2011. http://www.energinet.dk.

Eﾐeヴgy Eleﾏeﾐt. さ“atヴegies foヴ the uptake of eleItヴiI ┗ehiIles aﾐd assoIiated iﾐfヴastヴuItuヴe iﾏpliIatioﾐs.ざ ヲヰヰΓ.

Enviro. Wind-Powered Car Scheme for Denmark . 2009. http://www.enviro-

news.com/news/windpowered_car_scheme_for_denmark.html.

eTeI, IﾐfヴastヴuItuヴe. さEleItヴiIity as a fuel. AFTA IoﾐfeヴeﾐIe ヲヰヱヰ.ざ ヲヰヱヰ. http://www.electricdrive.org/index.php?ht=a/GetDocumentAction/i/15318.

EU. Europe's Energy portal. 2011. http://www.energy.eu/.

EU member states. Europe's Energy Portal. 2011. http://www.energy.eu/.

EuヴAIti┗.Ioﾏ. さEleItヴiI Iaヴ ﾏakeヴs fight o┗eヴ plug staﾐdaヴd.ざ ヲヰヱヱ.

Excite. FAQ: How do I calculate a car's cost per mile or kilometer? n.d.

http://www1.excite.com/home/info/learn2/learnlets_overview/0,14915,auto,00.html

(accessed 2011).

EzineMark.com. Car leasing increases in Denmark! . 2010. http://vehicle.ezinemark.com/car-leasing-

increases-in-denmark-16c625a4eb7.html.

Frost & Sullivan. さ“ustaiﾐaHle aﾐd Iﾐﾐo┗ati┗e Peヴsoﾐal Tヴaﾐspoヴt “olutioﾐs - Strategic Analysis of

Caヴshaヴiﾐg Maヴket iﾐ Euヴope.ざ Maヴket Eﾐgiﾐeeヴiﾐg ReseaヴIh, ヲヰヱヰ.

Going electric. Extended Range electric vehicles. 2011. http://www.going-electric.org/why/electric-

vehicles/erev.htm.

Green Car Congress. Nissan to Warranty LEAF Battery for 8 Years, 100,000 Miles. 27 July 2010.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2010/07/nissan-to-warranty-leaf-battery-for-8-years-

100000-miles-.html#more (accessed 2011).

76

Hertz Delebilen. Priserne og behovet. 2011. http://www.delebilen.dk/vContents.aspx?pID=34.

Hewreck. Electric car charging stations arriving to Best Buy. 2010. http://hewreck.com/electric-car-

charging-stations-arriving-to-best-buy/.

hybridCARS. 13 Key Questions and Answers about Nissan Leaf Battery Pack and Ordering. 27 May

2010. http://www.hybridcars.com/news/13-key-questions-and-answers-about-nissan-leaf-

battery-pack-and-ordering-28007.html (accessed 2011).

Inhabitat. Massachusetts set t install 100 EV charging stations. 2010.

http://inhabitat.com/massachusetts-set-to-install-100-ev-charging-stations/.

Jørgensen, Peter Jacob. Samsø – a Renewable Energy Island. Samsø: PlanEnergi and Samsø

Energiakademi, 2007.

JRC Technical notes. 2009.

Keﾏptoﾐ, aﾐd ToﾏiI. さVehiIle to Gヴid po┘eヴ fuﾐdaﾏeﾐtals; IalIulatiﾐg IapaIity aﾐd ﾐet ヴe┗eﾐue.ざ 2005.

Kitamura, Makiko, and Takako Iwatani. Nissan's Leaf Lithium-Ion Battery Maker Targets Cost of Less

Than $9,000. 14 May 2010. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-05-14/nissan-s-leaf-

lithium-ion-battery-maker-targets-cost-of-less-than-9-000.html (accessed 2011).

Kjaer, Brian, interview by Group. (2011).

Københavns Delebiler. Priser. 2011. http://www.kobenhavnsdelebiler.dk/.

Køge Delebil. Priser. 2011. http://www.koege-delebil.dk/.

London, Transpoヴt foヴ. さGuidaﾐIe foヴ iﾏpleﾏeﾐtatioﾐ of EVCP iﾐfヴastヴuItuヴe.ざ ヲヰヱヰ.

Luﾐd, Heﾐヴik, aﾐd Willet Keﾏptoﾐ. さIﾐtegヴatioﾐ of RE to the tヴaﾐspoヴt aﾐd eleItヴiI seItoヴ tヴough VヲG.ざ ヲヰヰΒ.

Mazziotta ﾏotoヴs. さRegeﾐeヴati┗e Hヴakiﾐg systeﾏ.ざ ﾐ.d.

Millard-Ball, Adam, Gail Murray, Jessica Ter Shure, Christine Fox, and Jon Burkhardt. Car-Sharing:

Where and How It Succeeds. TCRP Report 108, Washington, DC.: Transportation Research

Board, 2005, 264.

Miﾐistヴy of Eﾐeヴgy, UK. さVehiIle details foヴ pヴius Tン E-CVT.ざ ヲヰヰΓ.

Move About. Move About homepage. 2011. http://www.moveabout.dk/ (accessed 2011).

Munksøgård Delebilklub. Prisliste. n.d. http://delebil.munksoegaard.dk/delebil/.

MygreenWheels. 2010. http://www.mygreenwheels.com/.

Neﾏヴy, LeduI, Muﾐoz. さPlug-in hybrid and Battery-ElectヴiI ┗ehiIles.ざ ヲヰヰΓ.

77

Nissan. 2011. http://www.nissan.co.uk/vehicles/electric-vehicles/electric-

leaf/leaf.html#vehicles/electric-vehicles/electric-leaf/leaf.

—. European prices of Nissan Leaf. May 2010. http://www.nissan-

global.com/EN/NEWS/2010/_STORY/100517-01-e.html (accessed 2011).

Opel. The future of mobility . 2011. http://www.opel-ampera.com/index.php/mas/home.

Petersen, Bo, interview by Githii Safian Peter Fanni. (2011).

Petersen, Bo. About ChoosEV (2011).

PG&E. Pacific gas and electric company energizes SV with V2G technology. 2007.

http://www.pge.com/about/news/mediarelations/newsreleases/q2_2007/070409.shtml.

Post Danmark. http://www.postdanmark.dk/contentfull.dk?content=/cms/da-

dk/ompostdanmark/milijoe/samfund.htm&menufile=/cms/da-

dk/menufiles/ompostdanmark.xml&lang=dk. 2011.

Postnord. 2011. http://www.postnord.com/en/About-Us/Our-

Responsibility/Environment/Environmental-milestones/.

Printzen, Jens Erik, interview by Group. (2011).

Rathje, Michael. Leasing gør el-biler attraktive. 2010. http://nyhederne.tv2.dk/article.php/id-

31047947:leasing-g%C3%B8r-elbiler-attraktive.html.

Renault and Better Place. Better Place aﾐd Reﾐault lauﾐch iﾐ Copeﾐhageﾐ the first さuﾐliﾏited ﾏileageざ electric car. 03 March 2011. http://media.renault.com/global/en-

gb/renaultgroup/Media/PressRelease.aspx?mediaid=27893 (accessed 2011).

“haheeﾐ, “usaﾐ A., aﾐd Adaﾏ P. Coheﾐ. さWoヴld┘ide Iaヴshaヴiﾐg gヴo┘th: aﾐ iﾐteヴﾐatioﾐal Ioﾏaヴisoﾐ.ざ Transportation Research Record (TRR) 1992, 2007: 81-89.

“haheeﾐ, “usaﾐ, Daﾐiel “peヴliﾐg, aﾐd Coﾐヴad Wagﾐeヴ. さA “hoヴt Histoヴy of Caヴshaヴiﾐg iﾐ the Γヰ's.ざ The

Journal of World Transport Policy & Practice, Vol. 5, No. 3, September, 1999: 18-40.

Shankar, Besta. International business times. 2010.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/79397/20101107/denmark-electric-cars-pollution-green-

house-gases-renewable-energy-subsidies-copenhagen-wind-power-i.htm.

Silkeborg Delebilklub. Priser. 2011. http://www.silkeborgdelebilklub.dk/.

Sisternes, Fernando J de. さPlug-iﾐ EleItヴiI VehiIle IﾐtヴoduItioﾐ iﾐ the EU.ざ ヲヰヱヰ.

SKAT DK. SKAT DK - VAT, payroll tax and environmental taxes. 2011.

http://www.skat.dk/SKAT.aspx?oId=1880492&vId=0&lang=US.

“piﾐﾐo┗atioﾐ. さUsiﾐg fleets of eleItヴiI ┗ehiIles foヴ eleItヴiI po┘eヴ gヴid suppoヴt.ざ ヲヰヰΒ.

Statistic Denmark. StatBank Denmark. 2011. http://www.statbank.dk/BIL600.

78

Statistics Denmark. StatBank Denmark. 2011. http://www.statbank.dk.

Steensgaard, Søren, interview by Group. (2011).

Tambjerg, Leif Holm. Samsø Energistrategi 2025 udkast. spreadsheet, PlanEnergy, 2009.

Think. Zero to 80 Percent in 15 minutes: New Benchmark for EV Fast-charging. 2010.

http://www.thinkev.com/Press/Press-releases/Zero-to-80-Percent-in-15-minutes-New-

Benchmark-for-EV-Fast-charging.

Topten. 2006. www.topten.be.

Toyota. 2011. www.toyota.dk.

Trading Economics. Real interest rate (%) in Denmark. n.d.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/denmark/real-interest-rate-percent-wb-data.html.

Tranberg, Jørgen, interview by Group. (2011).

Tryg.dk. Insurance quotation. 2011.

U.“ Eﾐeヴgy iﾐfoヴﾏatioﾐ, Adﾏiﾐistヴatioﾐ. さWheヴe Iaﾐ I fiﾐd data oﾐ eleItヴiIity tヴaﾐsﾏissioﾐ aﾐd distヴiHutioﾐ losses.ざ ヲヰヰΓ.

VAB. 2011. http://www.vaab.dk/index.php/okonomi/42-en-sund-investering-for-fremtiden.

WorldEnergy.org. Denmark. 2008.

Wu, Qiu┘ei, et al. さDヴi┗iﾐg Patteヴﾐ Aﾐalysis foヴ EleItヴiI VehiIle ふEVぶ Gヴid Iﾐtegヴatioﾐ “tudy.ざ Innovative Smart Grid Technologies (ISGT). 2010.

Yoney, Domenick. Better Place and DSB to pilot electric car sharing for train travelers. 2009.

http://green.autoblog.com/2009/10/25/better-place-and-dsb-to-pilot-electric-car-sharing-

for-train-tra/.