EV Development
EV Development
EV Development
Introduction: Electric vehicles (EVs) have the potential to significantly reduce the
environmental impact of transportation by lowering emissions and reliance on fossil
fuels. Despite the clear benefits, the transition from internal combustion engine (ICE)
vehicles to EVs is not without obstacles. This paper explores the multifaceted
challenges hindering the adoption of EVs and discusses ongoing efforts and
innovations to overcome these barriers. Understanding these challenges is essential
for stakeholders, including policymakers, manufacturers, and consumers, to
collaboratively foster a sustainable and efficient EV ecosystem.
Section 4: Economic Barriers and Incentives The higher upfront cost of EVs
compared to ICE vehicles remains a major barrier for many consumers. This section
examines the economic factors influencing EV adoption, including vehicle cost, total
cost of ownership (TCO), and the availability of financial incentives. Government
policies such as tax credits, rebates, and subsidies are evaluated for their effectiveness
in reducing the economic burden on consumers. The potential for cost reductions
through economies of scale, technological advancements, and competitive market
dynamics is also discussed.
References:
1. Dunn, B., Kamath, H., & Tarascon, J.-M. (2011). Electrical energy storage for
the grid: A battery of choices. Science, 334(6058), 928-935.
2. International Energy Agency (IEA). (2020). Global EV Outlook 2020:
Entering the decade of electric drive?
3. Lutsey, N., & Nicholas, M. (2019). Update on electric vehicle costs in the
United States through 2030. The International Council on Clean
Transportation.
4. Noel, L., Zarazua de Rubens, G., Kester, J., & Sovacool, B. K. (2019).
Vehicle-to-Grid: A sociotechnical transition beyond electric mobility.
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, 47-61.
5. Peters, A., & Dütschke, E. (2014). How do consumers perceive electric
vehicles? A comparison of German consumer groups. Journal of
Environmental Policy & Planning, 16(3), 359-377.