4.7 Article

Recycling mechanisms and policy suggestions for spent electric vehicles' power battery -A case of Beijing

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Volume 186, Issue -, Pages 388-406

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.043

Keywords

Spent power battery; Electric vehicle; Recycling mode; Reward-penalty mechanism; Environmental awareness

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71774171]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In recent years, electric vehicles have developed rapidly in China, and recycling a large number of their spent power batteries will become a substantial challenge in the near future. However, the specific mechanisms and policies for recycling spent power batteries have still not been established in China. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to propose reward-penalty mechanisms and policies, and test their impacts on power battery recycling by using a Staklberg game theory based model. In the model, three single recycling channel modes and three competitive dual recycling channel modes were considered respectively. Furthermore, the total social welfare is used as the indicator to select the optimal recycling modes, which includes participants' profit, consumer surplus, government's supervision cost, energy saving and carbon emission reduction effect. The obtained analysis results show that: (i) the intensive reward-penalty mechanism is more suitable for higher recycling rate modes, otherwise it may cause benefit losses, and thus, setting a reasonable minimum recycling rate as benchmark for reward-penalty mechanism is critically important; (ii) Environmental awareness has significant impacts on social benefits of power battery recycling; (iii) M&R (mode with competition between manufacturer and retailer in the recycling channels) has obvious advantages among these six recycling modes. (C) 2018 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