4.7 Article

Does range matter? Exploring perceptions of electric vehicles with and without a range extender among potential early adopters in Germany

Journal

ENERGY RESEARCH & SOCIAL SCIENCE
Volume 8, Issue -, Pages 198-206

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2015.06.001

Keywords

Electric vehicle; Range extender; Acceptance; Mobility needs

Funding

  1. German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology
  2. French Environment and Energy Management Agency
  3. Austrian Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology
  4. European funding scheme Electromobility+

Ask authors/readers for more resources

High CO2 emissions, air pollution and fossil fuel consumption require an energy transition in the transportation sector. Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) represent one way to achieve this. However, limited range is one of the major barriers to their widespread adoption. A BEV with a range extender (i.e., extended range electric vehicle, EREV) could be one sustainable solution to this problem. The present study examines the acceptance of EREVs relative to BEVs among a sample of early adopters. Specifically, we investigate whether indicators of mobility needs and acceptability of range extender usage predict individual differences in acceptance of EREVs versus BEVs. In total, 112 potential early adopters of EVs in Germany with previous limited-range mobility experience were surveyed. On average, both vehicle concepts were highly appreciated; however, BEVs were appreciated slightly more. EREVs with higher total range received higher valuation ratings, but only if there was no significant reduction in battery range. Yet, there were also substantial individual differences in acceptance of EREVs versus BEVs. These differences were related to certain indicators of mobility needs and the acceptability of range extender usage. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available