1.

INTRODUCTION

Car manufacturers have turned to electricity over fears of a looming environmental disaster. As
Carlos Ghosn, chairman and chief executive of the Renault Group, says:
“The Renault-Nissan alliance is targeting sales of 1.5m zero emissions vehicles by 2016,
delivering a 20 per cent reduction in our carbon footprint and a 35 per cent improvement in
our overall fuel economy. Beyond pure sales volumes the LEAF symbolises our wide-angled
view of society. The world already has seven billion people and one billion cars. The Nissan
LEAF shows that the automobile industry can contribute to sustainability without giving up our
role as a source of unmitigated excitement and mobility. The electric car will represent a
very big percentage of our industry in the future.”
The early years of the electric car are filled with stories of snake oil salesmen, dubious
speculators and patent trolls. Many of the outrageous claims made for horseless carriages were
untrue. Motorists who found themselves stranded miles from anywhere with a flat battery had
good reason to be angry when their car failed to achieve the range to empty figures they had
been promised. Henry Ford, whose wife used an electric car, was so alarmed by the poor
dependability of batteries that he even built a charging station just so he could be sure his wife
would always be able to get home. But, for all their drawbacks, electric cars did have many
good points. Had the electric car industry found its own Henry Ford (and it almost persuaded
Ford himself to be its advocate), history may have been very different. And it all began with
the battery a ground-breaking discovery, which came about as a result of a friendly dispute over
frogs’legs

Alessandro Volta: Italian physicist who invented the first battery capable of supplying a
reliable electric charge.

Although some historians believe the electrochemical cell was invented in Mesopotamia shortly
after the crucifixion of Christ, the man most widely credited with the discovery of the modern-

1
day battery was the Italian chemist and inventor Alessandro Volta. Volta was born in Como,
Italy, and was a physics professor at the city’s Royal School. In 1775, he took an invention by
a Swedish professor called Johan Carl Wilcke and refined it to create what he dubbed the
electrophorus. Volta was fascinated by the potential of electricity. He did pioneering work on
what is now known as electrical capacitance, developing a means to study both potential and
charge, and experimented with very primitive ignition systems, burning methane via an
electrically generated spark. Around the same time as Volta was refining his electrophorus, one
of his fellow countrymen, a physicist called Luigi Galvani who was Professor of Medicine at
the University of Bologna, was making an even more important discovery. He assembled plates
of copper and zinc separated by pasteboard soaked in an electrolyte (a brine mixture of salt and
water). When the top and bottom contacts were connected by wire he measured a continuous
electric current. In doing so, Volta had invented the primary battery. In honour of his discovery,
it was named the voltaic pile because the primitive cells were literally ‘piled’ on top of one
another. The battery opened up infinite possibilities. For the first time, inventors could draw a
continuous electric current for hours, instead of relying on the erratic sparks produced by the
Leyden jar method, which ‘stored’ static electricity in a very primitive form of capacitor.

In 1821, English chemist Michael Faraday built two devices to demonstrate how a wire
rod carrying a current from a voltaic pile would rotate around a fixed magnet if one end
extended into a liquid conductor that completed the circuit. By reversing the elements, the
magnet could be made to rotate around the wire. Faraday had invented the world’s first electric
motor. One (possibly apocryphal) story says that during a demonstration for the Prime Minister,
Sir Robert Peel, Faraday was asked what possible use his discovery could be, to which he
replied: ‘Why Prime Minister, someday you can tax it’. Faraday’s peers were quick to seize on
his breakthrough. A year later, English mathematician and physicist Peter Barlow produced an
interesting variation on Faraday’s motor, using it to turn a wheel, thereby demonstrating a
practical use for the new discovery. In 1831, Faraday created the world’s first dynamo called
the Faraday disc when he succeeded in moving a disc held perpendicular to a magnetic field, a
technological breakthrough that led to renewed scientific interest in using mechanical means to
create electrical energy. Faraday’s work was the cornerstone of understanding that underpins
all electrical technology, including the motors and generators that power electric vehicles in the
twenty-first century. Four years later, a blacksmith from Vermont, New England, in the United
States, built a small drifter operated by an electric motor proving that electricity could be put to

2
work. Then, in 1838, a Scots chemist named Robert Davidson unveiled an electric locomotive.
Sadly, its practical value was limited. The top speed of just four miles per hour had been roundly
trumped almost a decade earlier by Stephenson’s Rocket steam loco, which achieved 30mph
(48km/h) during the Rainhill Trials. However, the principal of electric propulsion was sound
and, in 1840, a patent was issued for the use of rails as conductors of electricity. Davidson, who
came from Aberdeen, set to work on a larger loco, which was the star exhibit at the Royal
Society of Arts Exhibition in 1841. He named his creation the Galvani in honour of Lugi
Galvani. The impressive 7 ton loco was hauled by two direct-drive motors, which used fixed
electro-magnets acting on iron bars that were attached to a wooden drive cylinder mounted on
each axle. The following September, Davidson demonstrated his invention on the Edinburgh
and Glasgow Railway, where it managed to haul a 6 ton load one and a half miles before the
batteries were exhausted. Economically, however, the electric locomotive couldn’t hold a
candle to the steam engine. The invention of the rechargeable battery was more than a decade
away and disposable batteries were more expensive than coal. Davidson’s invention was
viewed with suspicion, and outright hostility, by workers on the railway who though electricity
might put them out of a job.

1.1. History of Electric Vehicles

1.1.1. The First Electric Horseless Carriage

Robert Anderson’s invention sadly the details of his vehicle have been lost but sometime
between 1832 and 1839 he designed, built and tested a battery-powered horseless carriage.
Unfortunately for him, Anderson had no alternative but to use nonrechargeable cells as the lead-
acid rechargeable battery wasn’t invented until 1859, thus making his carriage nothing more
than an interesting oddity and the smallest of footnotes in history, rather than a ground-breaking
invention. Despite this, Anderson can still be said to be one of the pioneers of the electric car.
The other was a Dutchman.

3
Figure 1.1: The first electric horseless carriage: Sibrandus Stratingh’s battery-powered
carriage was a breakthrough in electric propulsion.

Sibrandus Stratingh was a Dutch chemistry professor and keen inventor with a yen for
speed. He was convinced technology would make the horse and carriage redundant. Stratingh
and his friend, German instrument maker Christopher Becker, were at the forefront of steam
power development.

1.1.2. Britain and the First Rechargeable Electric Horseless Carriages

French inventor Gustave Trouve who had taken to cruising the river Seine with friends
aboard his electrically powered 17ft (5m) launch, adapted it to power a Coventry-Rotary
pedal tricycle. In November 1881, he demonstrated a working three-wheeled automobile at
the International Exhibition of Electricity, held in Paris. Trouve used the second cell design,
invented by Gaston Plante, a Belgian, who had found a way to discharge and recharge
batteries thus overcoming the problem of what to do when a battery was exhausted. A year
later, Professors William Ayrton of London and John Perry from Garvagh, County
Londonderry, in Ireland, combined their knowledge to create their version of the electric trike.
It used ten lead/acid Plante-type rechargeable batteries in series, which supplied 20V to a half-
a-horsepower electric motor mounted beneath the plank-like driver’s seat. The vehicle, which
had two large spoked bicycle wheels at the front and a small wheel at the rear, was also the
first to feature electric lights. These small bulbs were not, however, to allow anyone stupid
enough attempting to drive after sundown to see where they were going, but to illuminate the
trike’s instruments, a small ammeter and voltmeter. Its speed was governed by
switchingbetween the batteries in series. Ayrton and Perry claimed their rickety contraption
was good for a maximum speed of 9mph (14km/h) and could cover a remarkable 25 miles
(40km) depending on the terrain before the power was exhausted. Responding to the growing
demand for electric
4
propulsion, financier Paul Bedford Elwell and engineer Thomas Parker, formed a company to
manufacture rechargeable batteries in Wolverhampton, England, in October 1882. The Elwell-
Parker company quickly expanded its range to include dynamos, motors and controllers. the
first primitive electric vehicles were in every way just horseless carriages just a wooden body
riding on wood-spoke wheels and solid tyres. The ‘conversion’ consisted of a battery mounted
on the chassis, an electric motor and a means of steering. The advantages of electric propulsion
smoothness and refinement were entirely negated by the crudity of the design. As all the forces
acting on a car do so through the contact patches of the tyres, the adoption of pneumatic tyres
(perfected by Irish vet John Boyd Dunlop for his son’s bicycle in 1887) proved a breakthrough
in making electric cars more comfortable to drive. By the time the automobile industry really
began to flourish in the 1890s, the electric vehicle appeared to have an unassailable lead. The
DC motor and its ancillaries were well developed thanks to trams, such as the Volk’s Electric
Railway, which ran along the eastern seafront at Brighton. Lead-acid batteries, too, were rapidly
reaching maturity after more than a decade of commercial development. By the turn of the
twentieth century, leadacid batteries were durable enough to be used with confidence in
automotive applications.

1.1.3. America

In America, the famous inventor Thomas Edison was working on a new type of battery
which used nickel-iron and promised even greater gains specifically for electric vehicles. A
century before the Toyota Prius and the Nissan Leaf became the poster boys for supporters of
a sustainable green method of transport, electric vehicles were advertised as the
environmentally friendly alternative to traditional transportation. At the Chicago World’s Fair,
held in 1893, six electric vehicles vied for the public’s attention. Interestingly, the only
American exhibit was a twelve-seater designed by William Morrison of Des Moines, Iowa, the
rest being European in origin. The Morrison machine used twenty-four cells to power a 4bhp
motor enough for a top speed of 14mph (22km/h). The battery charging time was around ten
hours. The American Battery Company of Chicago had bought the rights to the fringe-topped
contraption in the hopes of manufacturing it. At the World’s Fair, company president George
Burroughs gave his youngest son, Edgar Rice Burroughs, the job of ferrying potential customers
around the grounds. Edgar, of course, would go on to become a famous novelist and the creator

5
of Tarzan. The vehicle certainly wowed the crowds who gathered to watch its progress. On 28
November 1895, company secretary Harold Sturges entered a modified electric in a race
organised by the Chicago Times Herald. Unfortunately, the combination of a 54-mile route
(87km), from Chicago to Evanston and back again, and terrible weather, conspired against him.
Despite having extra batteries, his vehicle was ill prepared for several inches of fresh snow and
drifts. It came to a halt in the slush and ice having covered less than a quarter of the route.
Another electric car the Electrobat made by Henry Morris and Pedro Salom from Philadelphia
fell victim to the same malady and the race was won by a petrol-powered Duryea. The first
automobile race had laid down an ominous marker: for all their smoothness and refinement,
only an internal combustion engine could be relied upon to battle through to the end.

1.1.4. Europe

From the earliest days, the French were enthusiastic supporters of electric power. At the
time, France was the world’s preeminent motor manufacturing nation, with literally dozens of
car companies pandering to the whims of rich clients. One of the best known was Jeantaud,
named after founder Charles Jeantaud, a coach-builder who made his first electric horseless
carriage – fashioned from a Tilbury-style buggy with the help of inventor Camille Faure. His
first successful electric car was launched in 1894. La Nature magazine described it as a two-
seat carriage and said the batteries, which weighed a not inconsiderable 450kg (992lb), were
mounted beneath the seat. The 4hp motor was slowed by leather brake shoes acting on solid
tyres. The driver steered via a tiller. Jeantaud's carriages used Fulmen accumulators that were
protected by boxes. On a full charge the Jeantaud carriage was capable of an impressive 13mph
(21km/h) top speed (about half that up a hill).
Jeantaud was keen to prove his vehicles in early competitions and a Jeantaud four-seater
took part in the 1895 Paris–Bordeaux race, the only electric vehicle to enter. As the race
involved a round trip of more than 700 miles (1,100km), the considerable problems of range
had to be overcome. The company arranged for supplies of new batteries to be available at
battery stations every 24 miles (15km), rather like a simple pit-stop. Sadly, exhausted batteries
proved to be the least of Charles Jeantaud’s problems. His car was ruled out of the race early
on when it encountered axle trouble near Orleans. The company’s competition cars were more

6
successful in other speed and distance tests when Jeantaud showed them to be capable of
covering 37 miles (60km) in less than four hours.

1.1.5. The Fastest Man on Earth

In 1898, magazine publisher M. Paul Meyan, who was also a founding member of the
Automobile Club de France, persuaded the editor of La France Automobile to sponsore a timed
hill climb competition at Chanteloup, 20 miles (32km) north of Paris. The event was held on
27 November 1898, over a tortuous course more than a mile up a winding gradient as steep as
one-in-twelve at certain points. Fifty-four cars turned up for the inaugural event. Having seen
what lay before them, seven pulled out on the spot leaving forty-seven drivers to fight for overall
honours. The winning vehicle was driven by a Belgian named Camille Jenatzy, who had entered
on impulse. His average speed was 17mph (27km/h) and the car was electric. In second place
was a Bollee petrol-powered car. Meyan was delighted by the time trial and the following week
La France Automobile announced an international speed competition ‘at the request of one of
our distinguished friends’. The distinguished friend was, in fact, the swashbuckling Count
Gaston de Chasseloup-Laubat, the younger brother of the Marquis de Chasseloup-Laubat, who
had founded the Automobile Club de France with his friend the Count de Dion to indulge his
passion for motor racing. The date was set for 18 December but the course would be very
different. The contest would be no hill climb. Instead, the contestants would fling their cars
around a 1.2-mile (2,000m) stretch of the smoothest road in France in Acheres Park, between
the towns of St Germain and Constans. Thanks to Napoleon, France was well blessed with long,
straight roads, perfect for top-speed runs. The crowds that gathered that chilly morning would
bear witness to history: the world’s first landspeed record attempt. Count Gaston Chasseloup-
Laubat was confident of victory. His chain driven rear-wheel drive Jentaud electric racer made
40bhp an enormous amount of power for 1898 and, with its aerodynamic torpedo shaped body,
nothing was expected to touch it. Belgian inventor and electric car pioneer Camille Jenatzy.
Known to his friends as the Le Diable Rouge, or ‘Red Devil’, in honour of his formidable-
looking ginger beard, Jenatzy came from a wealthy family. His father, Constant Jenatzy, was a
successful manufacturer of rubber products and he had studied engineering. Jenatzy was a
strong proponent of electric vehicles and had opened a manufacturing plant to build electric

7
carriages and trucks for the fast emerging market in Paris. Following his success in the
Chanteloup hill climb he was smitten by the thrill of motor racing.

Figure 1.2: La Jamais Contente (Never Satisfied): daredveil racer Camille Jenatzy built
a streamlined record-breaker in his bid to become the fastest man alive. MICHELIN

Figure 1.3: Jenatzy was an early pioneer of aerodynamic streamlining. The torpedo-like
shape of La Jamais Contente, manufactured from a lightweight aluminium, tungsten
and magensium metal alloy called Partinium, can clearly be seen here. MICHELIN

1.1.6. Electric Cabs And The Electric Vehicle Company

1.1.6.1. The Electrobat: the Electric Cab

In America, the story really began in 1894 when business associates Henry Morris and
Pedro Salom designed and built an electric vehicle in a mere two months. Morris, who was a
mechanical engineer, based the design on lessons he had learned while working on battery-
powered trams. He used a modified motor taken from a ship, a lead-acid battery slung as low
as possible and carriage-style wheels. The vehicle, which was completely open rather like a
wagon, had plenty of room for Morris and Salom and was steered via a tiller arrangement that
controlled the rear wheels. It had carriage-style spoked wheels and side-mounted lamps. The

8
first stunned pedestrians who saw it bouncing down the road in Morris’s home city of
Philadelphia must have though it looked like a runaway crate on four wheels. It certainly didn’t
have the attractive lines of a horse-drawn carriage. the car weighed a hefty 4,250lb (1,927 kg),
including the 1,600lb (725kg) battery pack. The claimed performance was 15mph (24km/h) and
it had a scarcely believable 50-mile (80km) touring range.

Figure 1.4: The Electrobat: designed by Henry Morris, who used his knowledge of work
on battery-powered trams to create a horseless carriage capable of transporting two
people. The tiller-type steering can clearly be seen. AMERICA ON WHEELS
MUSEUM, ALLENTOWN, PA

1.1.7. Bersey Electric Cabs

Walter Bersey, a precocious 20-year-old who had designed his own dry battery, was the
first businessman to introduce a‘self-propelled’ vehicle for hire on the streets of London. His
early cabs resembled horseless carriages with twin 3.5bhp Lundell-type motors, a two-speed
gearbox (with clutch) and chain final drive. They were capable of a steady 9mph (14km/h) –
more than enough to give them an edge over horse-drawn carriages. The forty-cell battery box
was designed to slide out for quick changes – having encountered a problem, Bersey had found
a way to engineer around it.

9
Figure 1.5: Sadly, Bersey’s dream of London taxi-cab domination was foiled by poor
batteries and bad luck.

1.1.8. the Riker Electric Motor Vehicle Company

Andrew Lawrence Riker had lashed together his first electric car by cannibalizing two
Remington bicycle frames in 1894 with a metal cradle and a motor. Riker set up a company to
manufacture electric motors based on ideas he had patented, then quickly moved on to full-
scale vehicle production. He used bicycle frames for light weight and strength. His company
also manufactured a number of straightforward runabouts that could seat two people and were
driven by two electric motors connected to the rear axle by spur gearing. Their maximum
speed was 10mph (16km/h) and the battery pack was good for a range of 25 miles (40km).
The wheels were shod with pneumatic tyres and the controller gave three forward speeds and
two reverse. Riker also built four-seater carriages that were propelled by a pair of 3bhp
motors of his own design, which gave a 12mph (19km/h) top speed.

Figure 1.6: A Riker electric taxi cab c.

1.1.9. Range Anxiety and the First Hybrid Drives

At the World Exhibition in Paris, in 1900, k.u.k. Hofwagenfabrik Ludwig Lohner & Co.
unveiled the Lohner–Porsche. The car called the Toujours-Contente, was the work of Lohner’s

10
chief designer, a young man called Ferdinand Porsche. He had developed an almost friction-
free drivetrain by mounting electric motors in the front wheel hubs. By using the rotation of the
wheel as the rotor of a DC motor, Porsche was able to do away with gears and drive shafts. His
novel approach resulted in a motor that was 83 per cent efficient – perfect for an automotive
application where batteries were still struggling to keep up with the ambitions of car designers.
Within four years Porsche was promoted to head of the company’s test department, where his
flair brought him to the attention of Jacob Lohner, a coach-builder with ambitions to become a
car manufacturer. Lohner was looking to develop a car as a way of making up for a slump in
orders for his coaches. After he was rebuffed by Karl Benz and Gottlieb Daimler, Lohner
decided to go it alone. His first attempt, with a French-made internal combustion engine, ended
in ignominy when the block cracked after less than 15 minutes. After briefly flirting with Rudolf
Diesel’s then radical ideas for an internal combustion engine, Lohner partnered with Bela Egger
to design and build an electric vehicle. Possibly because of his early setbacks with the
technology, Lohner became a vocal critic of the gasoline-powered internal combustion engine
and an early environmentalist.
The Lohner–Porsche was a revelation for the time. Its motors were housed in the
wooden-spoke front wheels one of the reasons why they each weighed a hefty 253lb (115kg).
Each one was good for 2.5bhp at a mere 120rpm enough to accelerate the first Lohner–Porsche
to its 23mph (37km/h) top speed.

Figure 1.7: The Lohner–Porsche – its front wheel hub mounted motors can clearly be
seen.

1.1.10. Edison–Ford: What Might Have Been

Despite Thomas Edison’s exhortations to a young Henry Ford that internal combustion
was ‘the thing’, the brilliant inventor hadn’t given up on the idea of the electric car. His first
effort, built in 1895, was a single-seat three-wheeler two at the front and one at the back

11
powered by two electric motors that produced 5bhp. The design never caught on, not least
because the car had to be steered like a boat a tiller arrangement moved the rear wheel rather
than the easier-to-master frontwheel steering. Regardless of the design drawbacks, Edison was
convinced only a breakthrough in battery technology could make electric vehicles viable.
Edison and Henry Ford had become firm friends since their meeting at the Old Manhattan
Beach Hotel a few years earlier and the famous inventor still had the motor magnet’s ear. In
1901, The Atlanta Constitution, published an intriguing article about Edison’s plans to
collaborate with Ford on an electric vehicle. The inventor told the paper he hoped owners would
be able to recharge their cars at plug-in battery stations alongside trolley bus lines. Rather more
fancifully, he also hoped batteries could be recharged at home via a small windmill coupled to
a generator. Edison’s battery breakthrough was a development of the nickel-iron cell invented
by Waldemar Junger, the Swedish designer who also created the nickel-cadmium battery.
Junger had abandoned nickel-iron due to its low efficiency and poor charge retention, but
Edison persevered. In 1901, he described nickel-iron as ‘far superior to batteries using lead
plates and acid’. He was right, too. The nickel-iron battery he created specifically for transport
applications had greater energy density than the lead-acid batteries that were in widespread use
at the time. One of the first cars to use the Edison battery was the Detroit Electric, built by the
Anderson Carriage Company, which was owned by a consortium of rich businessmen. The
Edison nickel-iron battery was a costly upgrade over the standard lead-acid battery and only
the wealthiest customers could afford it. The batteries did, however, have longevity on their
side. The durability rating of nickel-iron batteries is between 30 and 50 years. Reports of the
vehicle’s range vary from 45 miles (72km) to a review that claimed to have extracted a highly
improbable 211 miles (340km) out of one.

1.1.11. Peugeot

In 1942, one of France’s biggest pre-war car manufacturers Peugeot wheeled out an
electric microcar. The little Voiture Legere de Ville (Light City Car) used four 12V batteries
placed beneath the bonnet. It had three wheels two at the front and one at the back and Peugeot
claimed it had a top speed of 22mph (36km/h) and a range of 50 miles (80km). The VLV
weighed 771lb (350kg) of which 352lb (160kg) were the batteries. The VLV was used for

12
distributing the post and dispensing medical supplies. It was very popular and Peugeot made
377 examples before the Germans banned all electric car production.

Figure 1.8: The rather odd-looking Voiture Legere de Ville was Peugeot’s answer to fuel
shortages during the Second World War.

1.1.12. Japanese Rebirth: the Tama E4S-47-1

After the Second World War, Japan was in ruins. The Japanese were no strangers to
electric vehicles. As early as 1917 Rauch and Lang sold ten electric taxicabs to Japan and, even
in the misery of a post-war industrial landscape, they were quick to adapt what they knew.
Thetwo-door Tama E4S-47-1 went on sale in 1947. It was named after the area where it was
built but also, somewhat fortuitously, the name given to a person’s spirit in the Japanese Shinto
faith. It soon earned itself a reputation for dependability and became popular with Tokyo taxi
drivers who weren’t too bothered by the modest 19mph (30km/h) top speed. It used a 36V lead-
acid battery and had a maximum range of 40 miles (65km), although delighted users reported
the actual range was closer to 60 miles (96km).

Figure 1.9: The Tama E4S-47-1 became popular

with Tokyo taxi-cab drivers after the war. Tama also built this interesting electric truck
variant.

13
1.2. The Sixties And Seventies

1.2.1. The Henney Kilowatt

the Henney Kilowatt had a powertrain built by a vacuum cleaner company that was
installed in the body of a Renault Dauphine.
Renault as its donor chassis, when there were plenty of domesticalternatives, is unclear.

Figure 1.10: The Henney Kilowatt: an American car with a Renault body and an electric
motor built by a company best known for its vacuum cleaners.

1.2.2. Commercial Developments

The Trojan Electrojan was a small battery-powered commercial van designed to be used
in areas poorly served by public transport. The Electrojan was widely adopted by private
shopkeepers and large companies alike. Delivery companies embraced electric vehicles because
they were more reliable, easier to drive and quieter. Companies like Ringtons Tea and Corona
soft drinks used electric vehicles to distribute their products to customers across the country.
Commercial EVs were big enough to accommodate larger batteries and, therefore, overcame
the range restrictions that hobbled electric cars. This was the major reason why battery-powered
delivery vehicles continued to be produced when cars largely died out and why commercial
vehicles led the way in the nineties when interest in electric vehicles was rekindled by pollution
fears and the soaring cost of fossil fuels.

Figure 1.11: By the 1960s electric vans were hugely

popular in Britain. Harbilt was the market leader and its
general delivery vans were even exported to California.

14
1.2.3. British Revival

the British aircraft industry was in disarray after a series of setbacks, political
backstabbingand poor decision making. Management looked for a way to diversify and car
manufacturing seemed to be a good fit. Concerns about pollution and congestion spurred on by
the Buchanan report appeared to have created a niche in the market for a small electric city car.
The resultant two-seater was called the Scamp. The concept, which was overseen by Dr W. G.
Watson and project leader J. Chalmers, owed more to the bubble cars that were popular in the
fifties than the traditional saloon car as used by the Henney Kilowatt.

Figure 1.12: The Peel P50 still holds the record for the world’s smallest production car.

Figure 1.13: The Peel Trident originally sold with a

moped 49cc two-stoke engine gave birth to an electric
variant. The car is still in production.

In 1967, Ford unveiled its vision of an electric shopping car the first to be designed and
developed by a major manufacturer for many years at Ford of Britain’s Research and
Engineering Centre at Dunton, Essex.

15
 Figure 1.14: The Ford Comuta showed what was possible
when a major manufacturer put its mind to a small electric
city car.

The French Government had set up a committee to examine various electric vehicle
proposals, which chose three a Peugeot truck and van, and a battery-powered Renault 5 to be
put into production for eventual use with public agencies. The trio could cover 37–124 miles
(60–200km) at speeds of up to 50mph (80km/h).

Figure 1.15: The French Government chose

three electric vehicles - a Peugeot truck and
van and a Renault 5 to be put into production
for use by public utilities.

16
 In 1967, the Governor of California, former actor turned politician Ronald Reagan,
signed an act that established the California Air Resources Board, or CARB. The board’s job
was to improve the state’s air quality by protecting the public from airborne contaminants.

Figure 1.16: The Electrovair was a brave

attempt to build an electric car in the mid-
1960s.

The automobile was directly in its sights. CARB’s other mandate was to examine and
encourage innovative ways manufacturers could comply with impending clean air regulations.
Ultimately, this would lead to the zero-emissions vehicle programme, which was responsible
for the creation of the pioneering General Motors EV-1 in the nineties.

The first GM electric car was based on the Corvair, selected because it was the lightest GM
production car available at the time and its rear drive layout made it the ideal donor vehicle for
an electric motor installation. The General’s marketing men dubbed it the Electrovair.
Electrovair II, unveiled in 1966, used the new fourdoor Corvair saloon body. Painted metallic
blue, because it was the favourite colour of GM’s Vice President of styling Bill Mitchell, the
Electrovair II weighed 800lb (362kg) more than a regular Corvair, thanks to the huge battery
packs in the front and back. GM chose silver-zinc batteries because they were able to develop
high power.

1.2.4.The Lunar Rover

The world’s biggest car company General Motors had tried to develop an electric car
and concluded it couldn’t be done. Others had fallen by the wayside. So it fell to NASA to
prove that there was life in the electric car after all. NASA started work on a lunar rover in the
early sixties, when it became obvious a manned mission to the moon was the next logical step
in man’s exploration of space. The engineers who designed the moon buggy dusted down an

17
old design Dr. Porsche’s 60 years old wheel hub electric motors and hooked them up to standard
truck batteries to prove they had the right stuff for the unique conditions on the moon.

Figure 1.17: Ferdinand Porsche’s hub-motor design was used on the NASA lunar rover.
Electricity was the only viable propulsion solution open to the moon-landing
programme, and the vehicles are still there.

1.2.5. 1973: the Energy Crisis

Back on earth, the 1973 oil crisis gave governments around the world a wake-up call,
none more so than in America, the country that had embraced the car more whole heartedly
than any other. An oil embargo by the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries
(OPEC), in retaliation against US support for Israel during the Yom Kippur War, produced a
spike in oil prices that sent the cost of a barrel soaring by 70 per cent. Long queues became a
common sight at gas stations and petrol prices hit record levels. American motor manufacturers
had grown fat and lazy, preferring large capacity inefficient ‘gas guzzlers’ to the small capacity,
more technologically advanced and fuel efficient engines used by European and Japanese car
makers.
The Electra King was typical. Built by the B&Z Electric Car Company, in Long Beach,
California, it was an electric threewheeler similar to the BMW Isetta. Prior to 1972, it was
propelled by a 1bhp DC electric motor (allegedly an army surplus tank turret motor). Given a
long enough road and a following wind the Electra could reach a top speed of almost 20mph
(30km/h) and had a range of 45 miles (72km). Continuous development eventually pushed the
top speed up to 36mph (58km/h). B&Z also manufactured a four-wheel version and the little
two-seater was used in airports and factories.

18
 Figure 1.18: The Electra King was another abortive
attempt to sell America on the concept of an electricity
commuter car.ROGER WILLIAMS

The CitiCar was built between 1974 and 1977 by a Florida company, SebringVanguard,
which thought it saw an opportunity to sell a small two-seat electric vehicle in the aftermath of
the oil crisis. The wedge-shaped nose left it looking like a piece of cheese sitting on four small
wheels (the resemblance was especially clear on vehicles painted yellow). Still, the wedge was
quite popular at the time (the Lamborghini Countach launched the same year as the CitiCar and
the Triumph TR7) and the car was very cheap for an electric vehicle. At less than $3,000 it was
half the price of a typical family saloon. It was available in two versions: 36 or 48V producing
2.5 or 3.5 bhp via a GE electric motor. The 36V version had a top speed of 28mph (45km/h)
and the 48V ‘high-power’ version topped out at 38mph (61km/h). Range-to-empty was a
claimed 50 miles (80.5km). As safety was always a major concern for American buyers, the
company made much of the aluminium roll cage, impactabsorbing polyurethane bumpers and
standard-fit safety belts. The zip-up plastic door windows did nothing for security, however.
The bodywork was made from ABS plastic and the ‘high-power’ car weighed 1250lb (567kg).

Figure 1.19: New York car dealer Bob Beaumont

was behind the launch of the CitiCar.

19
 Around the same time as the CitiCar was making headway, Roy Haynes, the man
responsible for the original Ford Cortina was designing a rather better looking line-up of
microcars for the Electraction company in Essex. The company built four fibreglass-bodied
vehicles: a two-door called the Precinct, an open-top sports car called the Tropicana, a beach
buggy and a small van. There was also a prototype rickshaw, which used Vauxhall parts, aimed
at the foreign holiday resort market. In 1977 the company was confident of success.
‘Electraction’s marketing director has the job of holding back the avalanche of potential
customers until production gets underway,’ it said in a press release. Sadly this was just wishful
thinking and despite much publicity, the vehicles failed to sell in big numbers. Electraction
gave up in 1979.Fearing a political backlash over pollution, GM never really gave up on electric
cars. In the mid-1970s it returned with the Electrovette, a Kadett converted to DC drive using
lead-acid and zinc-air batteries.

Figure 1.20: A cutaway of the GM Electrovette shows the placement of the battery
modules behind the seats
In Europe, Fiat produced a series of electric prototypes including the interesting X1/23B
two-seater in 1975. As a major manufacturer of small cars, Fiat could appreciate the potential
of a compact electric city car. Its most advanced concept was unveiled in April 1977. The
Electric Town Car was a micro-sized, front-wheel drive city car with seating for two people
and a modest amount of luggage. Fiat claimed the zinc-nickel batteries had a capacity 1.75
times greater than the conventional lead-acid type enough to give the car a top speed of 47mph
(75km/h) sufficient for inner city use and a range of 45 miles (72.4km) at a constant 30mph
(48km/h) although it was considerably less in the kind of stop-start traffic a city car would most
likely encounter.

20
Figure 1.21: Fiat showed this intriguing electric prototype in April 1977 but opted for the
utterly conventional Panda instead.
The Japanese Government also showed renewed interest in electric vehicles during the
seventies. In November 1970, Nissan showed off a striking two-seater prototype co-developed
with Hitachi. The car was revealed at the Tokyo Motor Show and the batteries were said to
weigh just 330lb (150kg). Advances in technology were making batteries more efficient and
lighter.

Figure 1.22: Decades before the LEAF, Datsun (Nissan) was working on electric vehicle
prototypes. This was developed in conjunction with Hitachi.
In 1971, the Japanese Government announced a $20m 5-year programme to fund
development of battery-powered cars. The same year, Subaru showed off the Electro-wagon
XI, which was said to be capable of 55mph (88.5km/h). The batteries (a combination of nickel-
cadmium and zinc air) and drivetrain were developed with help from Sony and the Shinko
Electric Company

21
 Figure 1.23: The Japanese Government’s interest in
EVs spurred Subaru into building this ‘Electro-wagon’
concept in 1971

1.3. The Eighties And Nineties

In 1979, the Middle East was thrown into chaos when Islamic revolution swept the Shah
of Iran from power and replaced him with the Ayatollah Khomeini. Foreign oil workers fled
for their lives and Iran was forced to suspend oil exports, prompting a second oil crisis in less
than ten years. Although Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members increased output to off-set the
loss of production, the price of a barrel of oil more than doubled. Panic-buying exacerbated the
problems. In the United States, the world’s biggest car market, it was estimated that drivers
were actually wasting 150,000 barrels of oil a day simply sitting in gas station queues waiting
to fill up. The second oil crisis caught American car-makers by surprise. Despite the Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations, which had come into force in 1978, Detroit’s Big
Three auto-makers were still peddling overstuffed gas-guzzlers. Cars like the Ford LTD were
physically smaller than their predecessors but they still relied on large-capacity V8 petrol
engines. As another fuel crisis gripped the world, Japanese manufacturers cashed-in with cars
that used smaller fuelefficient multi-valve engines and front-wheel drive. Soaring pump prices
also acted as a pretty big incentive for car makers to pursue alternatives to fossil fuels with
renewed vigour.
In 1981, GE teamed up with Ford to work on an advanced electric vehicle powertrain
that was subsequently presented to the US Department of Energy (DOE) as an unsolicited

22
proposal. The concept used the best of both companies’ technology and was based on the idea
of a motor and transmission concentric with the drive-wheel axis. Officials at the DOE were
impressed by the concept. They reasoned that the combined motor/transaxle combination would
be smaller and lighter than the DC motors that were ubiquitous in electric vehicles at the time.
Beginning in 1982, DOE initiated an aggressive research effort with universities, the private
sector and federal agencies, to develop technology to reduce EV maintenance costs. The ETX-
1 vehicle used a very advanced AC drive system co-developed by Ford, General Electric, Exxon
Research and Engineering and Lucas Chloride EV Systems. A tubular lead-acid battery
provided 200V, which drove a 50bhp two-pole induction motor. Ford selected its most fuel-
efficient car as a donor vehicle for this new drivetrain: the Mercury LN-7, a curious two-door
coupé, which was somewhat loosely based on the European Mark III front-drive Escort. It
removed the asthmatic 1.6-litre CVH 4-cylinder petrol engine and replaced it with the integrated
motor/transaxle, which contained a two-speed automatic transmission with the oil-cooled AC
motor mounted concentrically with the drive-axle axis. The power electronics and control
system fitted beneath the bonnet and the battery modules sat, in a stepped arrangement, in the
boot and beneath the seats. According to the DOE, the ETX-1 was the first electric vehicle to
demonstrate a useful range in excess of 100 miles (160km).

Figure 1.24: The ETXII took the best bits of the original ETX prototype the drivetrain
added a new motor designed for heavier loads and fitted it to an Aerostar van.

1.3.1. The Sinclair C5

In the United Kingdom, electric vehicles were making headlines but, sadly, for all the
wrong reasons. Although the much maligned Sinclair C5 is viewed as an object of derision in
its home country, it was, until recently, one of the best-selling electric vehicles of all time. What

23
is less well-known is that the C5 was only the start. Had the project gone well, the little plastic-
bodied single-seater would have spawned a whole family of far-reaching electric cars.

Figure 1.25: Clive Sinclair with the finished C5. Sadly, the
public gave the plastic single-seater a resounding thumbs down.
Although the C5 became a national joke, it is actually one of the
most successful electric vehicles ever built.

1.3.2. Volkswagen and Audi

Volkswagen first experimented with electrification of its incredibly successful Golf

range in the seventies, when it removed the internal combustion engine and replaced it with a
battery-powered electric motor. These early tests gave rise to the 1985 CitySTROMer (strom is
the German word for current), of which more than 100 were made. VW engineers retained the
Golf bodyshell and fitted a 16bhp DC-motor in the engine bay. Powered by sixteen lead-acid
gel batteries, the motor could produce 20.6bhp for 15 min or kick out 30.8bhp for a maximum
of 5min. To keep the batteries cool, the CitySTROMer used a single-point watering system.
The car’s front grille (a solid slab of plastic that was cut into the standard slatted grille) hinged
down to give access to the on-board charger, which required between 8 and 12h to bring the
batteries up to full capacity. For each hour of charge, VW claimed the car would cover 4 miles
(6km) giving a maximum range of around 50 miles (80km). Top speed was around 60mph
(96.5km/h) something of a disappointment for anyone who believed the standard Golf 120mph
(190km/h) speedo to be indicative of the CitySTROMer’s performance potential. A small range
indicator replaced the fuel gauge. A separate, small gas tank in the engine bay provided fuel for
the heater. In other respects, the CitySTROMer resembled nothing more unusual than a standard
three-door Golf. It even retained that car’s petrol cap (albeit blanked off with a warning sign
that showed a petrol pump icon with a big red cross through it). The asking price was $30,000.

24
Figure 1.26: The Golf CitySTROMer sired a Jetta alternative and prompted further
investigation by Audi.

1.3.3. Renault’s Folding Electric Car Concept: the Zoom

In August 1992, Renault unveiled a radical interpretation of an electric commuter car: a

tiny two-seat city car with a body that contracted for parking. Called the Zoom, it was Renault’s
response to growing concerns over chronic urban congestion. The company claimed that every
lunchtime in Paris, a third of all cars in the city were looking for a parking space. According to
Autocar, equipped with a Zoom, the average Frenchman stood a better chance of enjoying his
déjeuner thanks to the car’s variable wheelbase.

Figure 1.27: The Zoom was Renault’s interpretation of an electric commuter with a
unique ‘folding’ body.

As well as the Zoom, Renault also partnered with Siemens to develop an electric version
of the popular Clio supermini. Called the Elektro Clio, it would use the same running gear as
the Zoom, but with cheaper batteries. It was also a good deal heavier because the Clio was a

25
conventional steel monocoque chassis, whereas the Zoom was built on a weight-saving
aluminium frame with plastic body panels. Citroën unveiled its own radical EV concept, the
Citela, at the Universal Exposition, held in Seville, in 1992. It, too, had a modular body that
allowed it to transform from a bizarre-looking coupé to a mini-estate and a saloon. Citroën
claimed the car had a top speed of 62mph (110km/h) and could travel 130.4 miles (210 km)
before requiring a recharge.

Figure 1.28: The Citroën Citela, unveiled at the

Universal Exposition, in Spain, in 1992.

In April 1999, the 106 also made a little piece of electric car history when it gave rise to
the UK’s first onstreet electriccharging point. Owner Simon Roberts had been campaigning for
4 years to have a plug-in point at the kerbside of his home. Nearly a century after electric motors
failed to oust the internal combustion engine, due in part to the lack of a dependable charging
infrastructure, the political landscape had finally changed for the better.

Figure 1.29: The Peugeot 106 electric was a far

more conventional stab at an EV.

1.3.4. Toyota’s RAV4 EV

The threat from the California Air Resources Board galvanized several other car
manufacturers to re-examine the potential for electric vehicles. The RAV4 EV which looked
outwardly identical to its conventional cousin apart from the exhaust pipe was a winner even
before it was launched. Designed and developed in record time, Toyota’s engineers entered and

26
won the Scandinavian Electric Car Rally with a pre-production prototype in 1995, a year before
sales began in Japan. Toyota’s decision to stick with a conventional-looking car meant
customers felt comfortable with the idea of driving the RAV4 EV (unlike the EV1, which
sometimes looked too futuristic for its own good). The first cars were built using the three-door
RAV4 body, but Toyota extended the range to include a five-door model. Using the larger body
meant the nickel-metal hydride battery could be secreted beneath the cabin floor without
restricting the boot space or rear passenger room. To compensate for the extra weight, the five-
door RAV4 EV had a more powerful motor (it produced 50kW as opposed to the 45Kw motor
used in the three-door variant).

Figure 1.30: Toyota’s EV looked utterly conventional compared to the EV1.

1.3.5. Ford’s EV Pick-Up

The Ranger EV was made available, again on a lease basis, in 1998. It was strictly rear-
wheel drive, power coming from a three-phase alternating current electric motor operating
through a single speed three to one reduction transmission and differential. Ford reckoned the
motor, which was manufactured by Siemens, was good for 90bhp and could operate at a
maximum speed of 13,000rpm. The drivetrain motor, transmission and differential were
contained in a single unit mounted high between the frame rails, transversely between the rear
wheels. The half shafts had to be angled downward to drive the wheels.

27
Figure 1.31: Note the green leaf side decal alerting pedestrians to the Ranger’s green
credentials.

1.4. 2000s and Tesla Motors

Tesla first gained widespread attention following their production of the Tesla Roadster,
the first fully electric sports car.The company's second vehicle is the Model S, a fully electric
luxury sedan, which was followed by the Model X, a crossover. Its next vehicle is the Model 3.
Global cumulative Model S sales passed 90,000 units by October 2015.

1.4.1. Tesla Roadster

Tesla Motors' first production vehicle, the Tesla Roadster, was an all-electric sports car.
The Roadster was the first highway capable all-electric vehicle in serial production for sale in
the United States in the modern era. The Roadster was also the first production automobile to
use lithium-ion battery cells and first mass production BEV to travel more than 200 miles
(320 km) per charge. Prototypes were introduced to the public in July 2006. The Tesla Roadster
was featured on the cover of Time in December 2006 as the recipient of the magazine's "Best
Inventions 2006 Transportation Invention" award. Tesla sold more than 2,400 Roadsters in 31
countries through September 2012. Most of the remaining Roadsters were sold during the fourth
quarter of 2012. The car had an average range of 245 miles (394 km) per charge according to
Tesla. On October 27, 2009, the Roadster driven by Simon Hackett drove the entire 313-mile
(504 km) segment of Australia's annual Global Green Challenge on a single charge, at an

28
average speed of 25 mph (40 km/h). The Tesla Roadster can accelerate from zero to 60 mph
(97 km/h) in under 4 seconds and has a top speed of 125 mph (201 km/h).

1.4.2. The Model S

The Model S was announced in a press release on June 30, 2008. The sedan was
originally code-named "Whitestar". Retail deliveries began in the U.S. on June 22, 2012. The
first delivery of a Model S to a retail customer in Europe took place on August 7, 2013. The
Model S was to have three battery pack options for a range of up to 265 miles (426 km) per
charge but, this was reduced to two, due to lack of demand for the shortest range vehicle. The
United States Environmental Protection Agency range for the 85 kWh battery pack model, the
first trim launched in the United States market, is 265 mi (426 km), and 208 mi (335 km) for
the model with the 60 kWh battery.Robotic manufacturing of the Model S at the Tesla Factory
in Fremont, California Tesla manufactures the Model S in Fremont, California, in an assembly
plant formerly operated by NUMMI, a defunct joint venture of Toyota and General Motors,
now called Tesla Factory.Tesla purchased a stake in the site in May 2010 for US$42 million,
and opened the facility in October 2010.Among other awards, Model S won the 2013 "Motor
Trend Car of the Year", the 2013 "World Green Car", Automobile Magazine's 2013 "Car of the
Year", and Time Magazine Best 25 Inventions of the Year 2012 award. In June 2015, three
years after the Model S introduction and with almost 75,000 Model S sedans delivered
worldwide, Tesla announced that Model S owners have accumulated over 1 billion electric
miles ( 1,6 billion km) traveled. The Tesla Model S is the first plug-in electric vehicle fleet to
reach the 1 billion electric miles milestone.

Figure 1.32: Tesla Model S charging at the Supercharger network station in Delaware

29
2. STRUCTURE OF ELECTRICAL VEHICLES

2.1. Electric Vehicle Types

It is generally possible to equip any kind of vehicle with an electric powertrain.

2.1.1.Plug-in Electric Vehicle

A plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) is any motor vehicle that can be recharged from any
external source of electricity, such as wall sockets, and the electricity stored in the rechargeable
battery packs drives or contributes to drive the wheels. PEV is a subcategory of electric vehicles
that includes all-electric or battery electric vehicles (BEVs), plug-in hybrid vehicles, (PHEVs),
and electric vehicle conversions of hybrid electric vehicles and conventional internal
combustion engine vehicles.

2.1.2. Hybrid Electric Vehicle

A hybrid electric vehicle combines a conventional (usually fossil fuel-powered)

powertrain with some form of electric propulsion. As of July 2015, over 10 million hybrid
electric vehicles have been sold worldwide since their inception in 1997, led by Toyota Motor
Company (TMC) with over 8 million Lexus and Toyota hybrids sold as of July 2015 followed
by Honda Motor Co. Ltd. with cumulative global sales of more than 1.35 million hybrids as of
June 2014.Ford Motor Corporation with over 424 thousand hybrids sold in the United States
through June 2015 Hyundai Group with cumulative global sales of 200 thousand hybrids as of
March 2014, including both Hyundai Motors and Kia Motors hybrid models and PSA Peugeot-
Citroën with over 50,000 diesel-powered hybrids sold in Europe through December 2013. The
Toyota Prius liftback is the world’s top selling hybrid with more than 3 million units sold by
June 2013.

2.1.3. On- and off-road Electric Vehicle

EVs are on the road in many functions, including electric cars, electric trolleybuses, electric
buses, electric trucks, electric bicycles, electric motorcycles and scooters, neighborhood electric

30
vehicles, golf carts, milk floats, and forklifts. Off-road vehicles include electrified allterrain
vehicles and tractors.

2.1.4. Railborne Electric Vehicle

The fixed nature of a rail line makes it relatively easy to power EVs through permanent
overhead lines or electrified third rails, eliminating the need for heavy onboard batteries.
Electric locomotives, electric trams/streetcars/trolleys, electric light rail systems, and electric
rapid transit are all in common use today, especially in Europe and Asia. Since electric trains
do not need to carry a heavy internal combustion engine or large batteries, they can have very
good power-to-weight ratios. This allows high speed trains such as France’s double-deck TGVs
to operate at speeds of 320 km/h (200 mph) or higher, and electric locomotives to have a much
higher power output than diesel locomotives. In addition, they have higher short-term surge
power for fast acceleration, and using regenerative brakes can put braking power back into the
electrical grid rather than wasting it. Maglev trains are also nearly always EVs.

2.1.5. Space Rover Electric Vehicle

Manned and unmanned vehicles have been used to explore the Moon and other planets
in the solar system. On the last three missions of the Apollo program in 1971 and 1972,
astronauts drove silver-oxide battery-powered Lunar Roving Vehicles distances up to 35.7
kilometers (22.2 mi) on the lunar surface. Unmanned, solar-powered rovers have explored the
Moon and Mars.
On this chapter we will only talk about Battery Electric Vehicle.
A wide range of BEVs (Battery Electric Vehicle) are becoming available from mainstream
vehicle manufacturers due to the availability of high performance lithium batteries and the
increasing pressure from European regulators to supply the market with more efficient cleaner
vehicles.
2.2. Electric Vehicle Components

The major components of the EV are an electric motor, an ECM, a traction battery, a
battery management system, a smart battery charger, a cabling system, a regenerative braking

31
system, a vehicle body, a frame, EV fluids for cooling, braking, etc. and lubricants. It is
important to look at the individual functions of each of these components and how they integrate
to operate the vehicle.

2.3. Electronic Drive Systems

An EV is propelled by an electric motor. The traction motor is in turn controlled by the

engine controller or an electronic control module. Electric motors may be understood through
the principles of electromagnetism and physics. In simple terms, an electrical conductor
carrying current in the presence of a magnetic field experiences a force (torque) that is
proportional to the product of the current and the strength of the magnetic field. Conversely, a
conductor that is moved through a magnetic field experiences an induced current. In an electric
propulsion system, the electronic control module regulates the amount of current and voltage
that the electric motor receives. Operating voltages can be as high as 360 V or higher. The
controller takes a signal from the vehicle’s accelerator pedal and controls the electric energy
provided to the motor, causing the torque to turn the wheels. There are two major types of
electric drive systems: alternating current (AC) and direct current (DC). In the past, DC motors
were commonly used for variable-speed applications. Because of recent advances in high-
power electronics, however, AC motors are now more widely used for these applications. DC
motors are typically easier to control and are less expensive, but they are often larger and
heavier than AC motors. At the same time, AC motors and controllers usually have a higher
efficiency over a large operational range, but, due to complex electronics, the ECMs are more
expensive. Today, both AC and DC technologies can be found in commercial automobiles.

32
 Figure 2.1: Electric vehicle drivetrain

2.4. Main Components of An EV

2.4.1. Motors

The motor is the main component of an EV. It is very important to select proper type of
motor with suitable rating. For example, it is not accurate to simply refer to a 10 hp motor or a
15 hp motor, because horsepower varies with volts and amps, and peak horsepower is much
higher than the continuous rating. It is also confusing to compare electric motors to gas engines,
since electric motors are given a continuous rating under load, and gas engines are rated at their
peak horsepower under unloaded condition. For accurate identification, a motor should be
identified by name or model number. Following are the commonly used motors in EV.

2.4.1.1. Series Wound Brushed DC Motors

Series wound brushed DC motors (the field winding and armature are connected in
series) are the best for the road-going EVs today, as they have a high torque, are cheap compared
to other types, have wide availability, and require simple controllers as compared to other types.

33
2.4.1.2. AC Motors

AC motors operate at high rpm that have to be stepped down, are expensive, and require
a complex speed control mechanism.

2.4.1.3. Brushless DC Motors

Brushless DC motors require expensive controllers, but need very little maintenance.

2.4.1.4. Permanent Magnet Motors

Permanent magnet motors are very efficient, but only in a very narrow rpm band, and
quickly lose their efficiency in the varying speeds of normal driving.

2.4.1.5. Shunt Wound DC Motors

Shunt and compound motors are more expensive to build and have poorer acceleration
than series motors.

2.4.2. Speed Controller

The speed controller is crucial to the efficiency and smooth operation of the electric car.
Speed controllers are rated according to the voltage and amperage ranges. Pulse width
modulation (PWM) DC motor controllers work by “pulsing” the current delivered to the motor.
Just like a piston water pump, the individual pulses are smoothed to produce a continuous flow.
They are usually air-cooled or water-cooled.

2.4.3. DC/DC Converter

An electric car normally uses a 12 V auxiliary battery to power all of the original 12 V
accessories: lights, horn, and so on. However, unlike a gas car, there is no alternator to keep
this battery charged. As the battery drains in use, the headlights will grow dimmer and the turn

34
signals flash more slowly. It can also affect the running of the car if some of the drive system
components do not get the signal they require from the auxiliary batteryThe better option may
be a DC/DC converter

2.5. Main Safety Components In An EV

2.5.1. Circuit Breakers

A circuit breaker provides a fail-safe manual interruption of the battery power in event
of a drive system malfunction. It also provides a convenient way to shut off battery power
during routine servicing of the system.

2.5.2. Ignition Key Main Contactor

Contactors are used to switch high currents remotely by means of a low-level control
voltage. In EVs high voltages, inductive loads, and extremely high current loads are
encountered. To switch a current under these conditions requires specifically designed
equipments. Contactors have continuous duty coils, silver-cadmium-oxide contacts to prevent
welding, and magnetic blowouts, which extinguish electrical arcing.

2.5.3. Potbox

The potbox is the interface between the throttle pedal and the speed controller. It sends
a variable resistance signal to the controller to specify the amount of electricity to be released
to the motor. It interfaces directly with any vehicle’s existing throttle control cable or linkage.
It comes with many safety features, such as deadman switches for emergency disconnect and
high pedal lockout to prevent unintentional acceleration.

35
2.5.4. Fusible Link

A fusible link should be inserted in the traction battery circuit in each pack in the vehicle.
It will break the circuit in case of a short circuit.

2.6. Instrumentatıon

2.6.1. Gauges

Gauges allow monitoring of an EV’s performance. The primary requirements of gauges

are reliability, accuracy, and readability. Many display formats do not live up to these criteria.
Panel meters are not designed to be used in vehicles. They cannot function reliably for extended
periods in the conditions of vibration, jostling, dust, and heat that are normal in a car. Light
emitting diode (LED) gauges are difficult to read in the sunshine

2.6.2. Ammeter

The ammeter gives a continuous reading of current usage. When an EV is coasting or

sitting still, it will read zero. During full acceleration, it will peg at the top of the scale, then
gradually fall off as the motor achieves its optimum rpm level. In reality, the ammeter is a mill
voltmeter.

2.6.3. State of Charge Gauge

This gauge measures the voltage in the battery pack and reads in percentages from full
to empty. Under acceleration, it will draw down to a lower voltage, so it should be read when
foot is off the throttle.

36
2.6.4. High-Voltage Meter

This gauge measures battery pack voltage and displays it in volts, to give a running
performance display.

2.6.5. Low-Voltage Meter

This gauge allows monitoring the charge level of auxiliary battery. It is normally
required for cars with DC/DC converters.

2.7. Main Auxılıarıes In An EV

2.7.1. Chargers

A good charger is crucial to EV performance. Early crude chargers simply slugged

voltage into the batteries until the charger was turned off. This caused the batteries to gas
heavily toward the end of the charge, and it shortened battery life

2.7.2. Relays

When installing high-voltage heaters, air conditioners, power steering pumps, and so on in an
EV, the appropriate relay is required to switch these devices on and off with a 12 V DC control
voltage. Since these loads are highly inductive, a relay with magnetic blowouts and adequate
spacing is required to interrupt the current without creating the contacts weld from the arcs.

2.7.3. Terminal Blocks

Terminal blocks are often used when there are multiple connections feeding to a common power
source or ground. There are two types: Small gauge is suitable for low current 16 ga. wiring;
large gauge is a single stud suitable for connection to 2/0 cable by a lug.

37
2.7.4. Fuse Block

A fuse block serves the same purpose as a terminal block, with the added feature of fusing each
connection.

2.7.5. Cables

It is important that the proper cable and lugs are employed when interwiring high-
current circuits such as batteries, motors, and controllers. It is also important that lugs are
crimped properly onto cable ends to ensure a good mechanical bond. If a lug is

2.7.6. Cable Grommets

As cables or wires are passed through a hole in sheet metal, a grommet should be used
to protect the wires. These grommets fit closely around the cables, eliminating movement and
providing a weatherproof opening.

2.7.7. Connectors

There are some places in an EV where a secure connection is needed and which can also
be easily separated. One such example is the wiring to an on-board charger. Hardwiring the
charger into the car is awkward and makes it difficult to remove for repairs or modifications.
The solution is the connector.

2.7.8. Belleville Washers

Proper battery connections are essential. Loose connections may lead to heat generated
damage, melted terminals, or fire. However, since lead is so soft, it is difficult to maintain a
snug connection without simply deforming the lead.

38
2.7.9. Heat Shrink Tube

All connections between cables and lugs should be weatherproofed and insulated.
Sometimes it is also useful to insulate other, smaller connections and terminals as well.

2.7.10. Flexguard

Wires gathered into proper looms not only look better, they are also better protected
from snagging or abrasion. This enhances the vehicle’s reliability. Flexguard provides an easy
to- use loom sheath. It is a corrugated flexible tube with a slit down the length.

2.7.11. Noalox

Corrosion is the enemy of an EV. Noalox anticorrosion compound protects connections.

If a lug is half-filled with Noalox before being crimped to the cable, then the connection is

covered with heat shrink tube, the connection will remain corrosion-free for years.

2.7.12. Heat Sink Grease

Controllers heat sink through their bases and are intended to be mounted on a flat piece
of aluminum for this purpose. A layer of heat sink grease between the controller and the plate
is essential for good contact and thermal transfer.

2.7.13. Adaptors

The adaptor plate mounts the electric motor to the original manual transmission and
clutch. The electro-automotive adaptors are precision machined. The adaptor comes in four
parts. The transmission profile plate is machined from aluminum and mimics the original
engine-mounting surface.

39
2.7.14. Taper Lock Hub

The crucial hub is machined from steel. It is a taper lock fit, the industrial standard for
high-rpm, high-torque applications. The hub mounts to the flywheel.

2.7.15. Vacuum Power Brake System

On most small cars, the brakes are designed with a large safety margin and will easily
handle the extra weight added by the conversion. However, disc brakes need a power assist,
even in conventional cars. The power assist relies on vacuum from the engine manifold. This
vacuum source is lost in the conversion, and needs to be replaced. This can be accomplished
with a vacuum pump, reservoir, and switch connected to the car’s original power brake unit.

2.8. Battery Basics

A battery cell consists of five major components: (1) electrodes anode and cathode; (2)
separators; (3) terminals; (4) electrolyte; and (5) a case or enclosure. Battery cells are grouped
together into a single mechanical and electrical unit called a battery module. These modules are
electrically connected to form a battery pack, which powers the electronic drive systems. There
are two terminals per battery, one negative and one positive. The electrolyte can be a liquid,
gel, or solid material. Traditional batteries, such as lead-acid (Pb-acid), nickel-cadmium
(NiCd), and others have used a liquid electrolyte. This electrolyte may either be acidic or
alkaline, depending on the type of battery. In many of the advanced batteries under development
today for EV applications, the electrolyte is a gel, paste, or resin. Examples of these battery
types are advanced sealed Pb-acid, NiMH, and Lithium (Li)-ion batteries. Lithium-polymer
batteries, presently under development, have a solid electrolyte. In the most basic terms, a
battery is an electrochemical cell in which an electric potential (voltage) is generated at the
battery terminals by a difference in potential between the positive and negative electrodes.
When an electrical load such as a motor is connected to the battery terminals, an electric
circuit is completed, and current is passed through the motor, generating the torque. Outside the
battery, current flows from the positive terminal, through the motor, and returns to the negative
terminal. As the process continues, the battery delivers its stored energy from a charged to a

40
discharged state. If the electrical load is replaced by an external power source that reverses the
flow of the current through the battery, the battery can be charged. This process is used to
reform the electrodes to their original chemical state, or full charge.

Table 2.1: Properties of battery type

2.9. Charging Technology

With electric vehicles (EVs) comes the EV recharge infrastructure, both for public and
private, or domestic use. This infrastructure includes recharging units, ventilation requirements,
and electrical safety features suited for both indoor and outdoor charging stations. As an
example of the developments, to ensure the safe installation of charging equipment, changes
have been made to State of California Building and Electrical codes.

2.9.1. Charging Stations

During EV charging, the charger transforms electricity supplied by the local utility into
energy compatible with the vehicle’s battery pack voltage requirements. According to the
Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE), the complete EV charging system consists of the
equipment required to both condition and transfer energy from a constantfrequency, constant-
voltage source or network to direct current. The direct current is required for the purpose of
charging the battery and/or operating the EV electrical systems (e.g., EV interior
preconditioning, traction battery thermal management, onboard vehicle computer). The charger
communicates with the battery management system and/or monitor (BMON). The management

41
system and/or BMON in turn calculates how much voltage and current is required to charge the
battery system.

2.10. The Fast Charger Configuration

The fast charger for traction batteries provides charging of batteries in 5 to 30 minutes.
In order to apply this fast charge in a period of 10 to 30 minutes, the charger must be able to
provide voltages up to 450V and currents up to 500 A. Such a charger characteristic “envelope”
is depicted by a maximum voltage-maximum current profile as shown in Figure 5–3. This
envelope implies a peak output power of 225kW. Thus charging a compact electric car in about
6 to 10 minutes, a midsize electric vehicle (EV) in about 25 to 30 minutes provided that the
battery quality allows charge acceptance at such rates. The modified battery charge profile of
maximum voltage-maximum power-maximum current limits the power to 120kW, while the
maximum current and the maximum voltage characteristics remain the same as the maximum
voltage-maximum current envelope. Using this new charge envelope, the compact size EV will
require 10 to 12 minutes to charge. The maximum voltage-maximum powermaximum current
profile characteristic has the advantages of (a) lower peak power (which dictates that the size
of the battery grid); and (b) spread of charging times, among EVs can be narrowed down in
spite of different battery voltages and battery capacities. The charger is designed essentially to
deliver the same amount of energy in the same time. The fast charger requires intimate
knowledge of the battery on charge. The battery charger requires knowledge about battery pack,
and the faster the charger, the more is the information needed. The charger can prevent
unwanted abuse of the battery while achieving optimal charge in the shortest possible time.

42
3. ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL
AND ALTERNATIVE VEHICLE OPTIONS

3.1. Introduction

Of the major industries that have to adapt and reconfigure to meet present requirements
for sustainable development, vehicle manufacturing is one of the more significant. One
component of sustainability requires the design of environmentally benign vehicles
characterized by no or little atmospheric pollution during operation. The design of such vehicles
requires, among other developments, improvements in powertrain systems, fuel processing, and
power conversion technologies. Opportunities for utilizing various fuels for vehicle propulsion,
with an emphasis on synthetic fuels as well as electricity via electrical batteries, have been
analyzed over the last decade and summarized. In analyzing a vehicle propulsion and fueling
system, it is necessary to consider all stages of the life cycle starting from the extraction of
natural resources to produce materials and ending with conversion of the energy stored onboard
the vehicle into mechanical energy for vehicle displacement and other purposes (heating,
cooling, lighting, etc.). All life cycle stages preceding fuel utilization on the vehicle influence
the overall efficiency and environmental impact. In addition, vehicle production stages and end
of life disposal contribute substantially when quantifying the life cycle environmental impact
of fuel-propulsion alternatives. Cost-effectiveness is also a decisive factor contributing to the
development of an environmentally benign transportation sector. This chapter extends and
updates the approach which evaluates, based on actual cost data, the life cycle indicators for
vehicle production and utilization stages and performs a comparison of four kinds of fuel-
propulsion vehicle alternatives. We consider in the present analysis two additional kinds of
vehicles, both of which are zero polluting at fuel utilization stage (during vehicle operation).
One uses hydrogen as a fuel in an internal combustion engine (ICE), while the second
uses ammonia as a hydrogen fuel source to drive an ICE. Consequently, the vehicles analyzed
here are as follows:
• conventional gasoline vehicle (gasoline fuel and ICE),
• hybrid vehicle (gasoline fuel, electrical drive, and large rechargeable battery),
• electric vehicle (high-capacity electrical battery and electrical drive/generator),

43
• hydrogen fuel cell vehicle (high-pressure hydrogen fuel tank, fuel cell, electrical drive),
• hydrogen internal combustion vehicle (high-pressure hydrogen fuel tank and ICE),
• ammonia-fueled vehicle (liquid ammonia fuel tank, ammonia thermo-catalytic decomposition
and separation unit to generate pure hydrogen, hydrogen-fueled ICE).
The theoretical developments introduced in this chapter, consisting of novel economic and
environmental criteria for quantifying vehicle sustainability, are expected to prove useful in the
design of modern light-duty automobiles, with superior economic and environmental attributes.

3.2. Analysis

We develop in this section a series of general quantitative indicators that help quantify
the economic attractiveness and environmental impact of any fuel-propulsion system. These
criteria are applied to the six cases studied in this chapter. The analysis is conducted for six
vehicles that entered the market between 2002 and 2004, each representative of one of the above
discussed categories. The specific vehicles follow:
• Toyota Corolla (conventional vehicle),
• Toyota Prius (hybrid vehicle),
• Toyota RAV4EV (electric vehicle),

• Honda FCX (hydrogen fuel cell vehicle),

• Ford Focus H2-ICE (hydrogen ICE vehicle),
• Ford Focus H2-ICE adapted to use ammonia as source of hydrogen (ammonia-fueled ICE
vehicle).
Note that the analysis for the first five options is based on published data from
manufacturers, since these vehicles were produced and tested. The results for the sixth case,
namely, the ammonia-fueled vehicle, are calculated, starting from data published by Ford on
the performance of its hydrogen-fueled Ford Focus vehicle. It is assumed that the vehicle engine
operates with hydrogen delivered at the same parameters as for the original Ford design
specifications. However, the hydrogen is produced from ammonia stored onboard in liquid
phase. Details regarding the operation of the ammonia-fueled vehicle are given subsequently.
The present section comprises three subsections, treating the following aspects: economic
criteria, environmental criteria, and a combined impact criterion. The latter is a normalized

44
indicator that takes into account the effects on both environmental and economic performance
of the options considered.
3.3. Technical and Economical Criteria

A number of key economic parameters characterize vehicles, like vehicle price, fuel
cost, and driving range. In the present analysis, we neglect maintenance costs; however, for the
hybrid and electric vehicles, the cost of battery replacement during the lifetime is accounted
for. Note also that the driving range determines the frequency (number and separation distance)
of fueling stations for each vehicle type. The total fuel cost and the total number of kilometers
driven are related to the vehicle life. The technical and economical parameters that serve as
criteria for the present comparative analysis of the selected vehicles are compiled for the Honda
FCX the listed initial price for a prototype leased in 2002 was USk$2,000, which is estimated
to drop below USk$100 in regular production. Currently, a Honda FCX can be leased for 3
years with a total price of USk $21.6. In order to render the comparative study reasonable, the
initial price of the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle is assumed here to be USk$100. The considered
H2-ICE was produced by Ford during the years 2003–2005 in various models, starting with
model U in 2003 which is based on a SUV body style vehicle with a hybrid powertrain (ICE +
electric drive) and ending with the Ford Focus Wagon which is completely based on a
hydrogen-fueled ICE. The H2-ICE uses a shaft driven turbocharger and a 217 l pressurized
hydrogen tank together with a specially designed fuel injection system. The evaluated
parameters for a H2-ICE Ford Focus Wagon converted to ammonia fuel are listed. The initial
cost is lower than that of the original ICE Ford Focus due to the fact that the expensive hydrogen
fuel tank and safety system are replaced with ones with negligible price, because ammonia can
be stored in ordinary carbon steel cylinders. Moreover, NH3 is a refrigerant that satisfies
onboard cooling needs, reducing the costs of the balance of plant. Based on a previous study, it
is estimated for the electric vehicle that the specific cost is US$569/kWh of nickel metal hydride
(NiMeH) batteries which are typically used in hybrid and electric cars. The specific cost of an
electric car vehicle decreased in recent years to below US$500/kWh (and in some special cases
to below US$250/kWh). Here, we assume the same figure, that is, US$570/kWh, which is
considered more conservative. For gasoline and hybrid vehicles, a 40 l fuel tank is assumed,
based on which determines the driving range.

45
Table 3.1: Technical and economical characteristics for selected vehicle Technologies.

Table 3.2: Historical price trends of selected energy.

3.4. Environmental Impact Criteria

Two environmental impact elements are accounted for in this study of fuel-powertrain
options for transportation: air pollution (AP) and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The main
GHGs are CO2, CH4, N2O, and SF6 (sulfur hexafluoride), which have GHG impact weighting
coefficients relative to CO2 of 1, 21, 310, and 24,900, respectively.SF6 is used as a cover gas
in the casting process for magnesium, which is a material employed in vehicle manufacturing.
Impact weighting coefficients (relative to NOx) for the airborne pollutants CO, NOx, and VOCs
(volatile organic compounds) are based on those obtained by the Australian Greenhouse Office
using cost–benefit analyses of health effects. The weighting coefficient of SOx relative to NOx
is estimated using the Ontario Air Quality Index data developed by Basrur et al.Thus, for

46
considerations of AP, the airborne pollutants CO, NOx, SOx, and VOCs are assigned the
following weighting coefficients: 0.017, 1, 1.3, and 0.64, respectively.

Table 3.3: Gaseous emissions per kilogram of curb mass of a typical vehicle

Table 3.4:Envioremental impact associated with vehicle production stages.

Table 3.5:Material inventory of a PEMFC stack

47
 The environmental impact of the fuel cell stack production stage is expressed in terms
of AP (air pollution) and GHG emissions. Compared to NiMeH batteries, the data indicate that
the PEMFC production stage accounts for relatively large GHG and AP emissions. The
manufacturing of electrodes and bipolar plates constitutes a major part of the emissions.
Additional sources of GHG and AP emissions are associated with the fuel production and
utilization stages. The environmental impacts of these stages have been evaluated in numerous
life cycle assessments of fuel cycles. Regarding electricity production for the electric car case,
three scenarios are considered here:
1. electricity is produced from renewable energy sources and nuclear energy;
2. 50% of the electricity is produced from renewable energy sources and 50% from natural gas
at an efficiency of 40%;
3. electricity is produced from natural gas at an efficiency of 40%.
As 18.4 tons CO2-equivalent per GWh of electricity. These emissions are embedded in
material extraction, manufacturing and decommissioning for nuclear, hydro, biomass, wind,
solar, and geothermal power generation stations. AP emissions are calculated assuming that
GHG emissions for plant manufacturing correspond entirely to natural gas combustion.
According to a study by Meier , GHG and AP emissions embedded in manufacturing a natural
gas power generation plant are negligible compared to the direct emissions during its utilization.

Table 3.6:GHG and air pollution emissions per MJ of electricity produced.

48
 Table 3.7: Fuel utilization stage and overall GHG and air pollution.

3.5. Normalization and The General Indicator

To allow different cars to be compared when various kinds of indicators are available a
normalization procedure is proposed. A normalized indicator value of one is chosen to
correspond to the best economic and environmental performance among the six vehicle types
considered. Normalized indicators for vehicle and fuel costs and GHG and AP emissions are
now introduced. Normalized technical–economical and environmental indicators for the six
vehicles types and the three electricity-generation scenarios are reported. A generalized
indicator is introduced, representing the product of the normalized indicators. The general
indicators provide a measure of how far a given car is from the “ideal” one for the factors
considered.
3.6. Results and Discussion
The normalized indicators are used to compare the fuel-powertrain cases. These results
indicate that hybrid and electric cars are competitive if nuclear and renewable energies account
for about 50% of the energy to generate electricity. If fossil fuels (in this case natural gas) are
used for more than 50% of the energy to generate electricity, the hybrid car has significant
advantages over the other five. For electricity-generation scenarios 2 and 3, however, the
ammonia-fueled

49
vehicle becomes the most advantageous option, based on the normalized general indicator
values. The results from (scenario 3) indicate that the electric vehicle is inferior to the hybrid
one in terms of vehicle price, range and AP emissions. The simplest technical solution to
increase its range is to produce electricity onboard the vehicle. Since the efficiency of
electricity generation by means of an ICE is lower than that of a gas türbine unit (typically the
efficiency of a thermodynamic cycle with fuel combustion at constant pressure is higher than
that one at constant volume), it could make sense on thermodynamic grounds to incorporate a
gas turbine engine into the electric vehicle. The application of fuel cell systems (especially
solid oxide fuel cell stacks) within gas türbine cycles allows their efficiency to be increased to
60% . The pressure of the natural gas required to attain a vehicle range equal to that of a hybrid
vehicle is more than two times less than the pressure of hydrogen in the tank of the fuel cell
vehicle. So, corresponding to the efficiency of electricity generation from natural gas the
required pressure in the tank of a hypothetical electric vehicle could decrease from 170 to 115
atm. Assuming the cost and GHG and AP emissions corresponding to the hypothetical electric
car production stage are equal to those for the electric prototype, the normalized indicators for
the different onboard electricity-generation efficiencies can be determined.

Table 3.8: Normalized economic and enviromental indicators for six vehicle types.

50
 Table 3.9: Dependence of the normalized general indicator

An optimization is needed to obtain the optimal relationship between capacities of

batteries and the characteristics of a gas turbine engine. The gas turbine engine has many
advantages over the conventional ICE: the opportunity to use various kinds of liquid and
gaseous fuels, quick starts at low air temperatures, high traction qualities, and simplicity of
design. The main reason the implementation of gas turbine engines into light-duty vehicles in
the 1960s failed was their poor ability to change fuel consumption with varying traffic
conditions. Then, the gas turbine engine was considered for use in directly converting fuel
energy into mechanical work to drive an automobile. The application of a gas turbine unit only
to generate electricity permits this weakness to be overcome, when the gas turbine is integrated
with a high-capacity battery and electric motor.
The introduction of ion-conductive membranes and fuel cells into a gas turbine cycle
can further increase the efficiency and decrease AP emissions . It is informative to compare the
energy stored in a fuel tank per unit fuel mass or fuel volume, for the fuels (energy carriers)
considered here (gasoline, electricity, and hydrogen and ammonia).

51
Table 3.10: Energy Stored in fuel tank per unit mass and per unit volume for various fuels

For the hydrogen-from-ammonia case, as well as for the hydrogen-fueled vehicles, we

assume here a 50% efficiency. In fact, the hydrogen-from-ammonia vehicle considered operates
with a hydrogen-fueled engine, so the efficiency of this engine and of the H2-ICE are equal.

Table 3.11: Energy available at engine shaft per unit fuel volume and fuel mass for various
fuels.

52
3.7. Conclusions
Using actual data, an economic and environmental comparison is performed of six types
of vehicles: conventional, hybrid, electric, hydrogen fuel cell, H2-ICE, and ammonia-to-
hydrogen. The analysis shows that the hybrid and electric cars have advantages over the others.
The economics and environmental impact associated with use of an electric car depends
significantly on the source of the electricity:
• If electricity is generated from renewable energy sources, the electric car is advantageous to
the hybrid vehicle.
• If the electricity is generated from fossil fuels, the electric car remains competitive only if the
electricity is generated onboard.
• If the electricity is generated with an efficiency of 50–60% by a gas turbine engine connected
to a high-capacity battery and electric motor, the electric car is superior in many respects.
• For electricity-generation scenarios 2 and 3, using ammonia as a means to store hydrogen
onboard a vehicle is the best option among those analyzed.
The implementation of fuel cells stacks and ion-conductive membranes into gas turbine
cycles could permit the efficiency of electricity generation to be further increased and AP
emissions to be further decreased. It is concluded, therefore, that the electric car with capability
for onboard electricity generation represents a beneficial option and is worthy of further
investigation, as part of efforts to develop energy efficient and ecologically benign vehicles.
The main limitations of this study are as follows: (i) the use of data which may be of limited
accuracy in some instances; (ii) the subjectiveness of the indicators chosen; and (iii) the
simplicity of the procedure used for developing the general indicator without using unique
weighting coefficients. Despite these limitations, the study reflects relatively accurately and
realistically the present situation and provides a general approach for assessing the combined
technical–economical–environmental benefits of transportation options.

53
4. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF ELECTRIC CARS IN TURKEY

Automotive industry in Turkey is powerfull sector for years but Turkey has not a mark
which is not owner. Many firms, such as Honda, Fiat, Toyota, Ford, Hyundai have factories in
Turkey.
Such as TEMSA, BMC, OTOKAR are Turkey’s mark but they don’t manufacture automobiles.
Electric car history has no longer past in Turkey. TÜBİTAK supports financial and
physical help to contractors, However, there is no answer enough except a little.

4.1. TÜBİTAK-MAM ELİT-1 Electrical Vehicle Project

In 2003,Doblo which is the production of TOFAŞ(Türk Otomobil Fabrikası) was

transformed hybrid electric vehicle at the extend of project was developed the first prototype in
Turkey. This project was financed by TOFAŞ. At the ELİT-1 was a serial hybrid vehicle that
has a motor the motor incitements the wheels. City driving mode, the electric motor, just a quiet
and emission-free battery, served by the possibility of driving. At the same time, today's
vehicles lost energy during braking, the electric motor in hybrid electric vehicles ELİT-1 of
regenerative braking is stored in batteries, to winning back. Another important feature of the
city in traffic congestion don't expect instant, in electric motor work required.

Figure 4.1: Doblo serial-hybride vehicle.

54
4.2. Otokar
In 2012 Otokar noticed Doruk Electra that is Turkey’s first electric bus.Electra,in a corner
of the four municipalities in Turkey by continues to be tested. İETT in Istanbul, in İzmir,
ESHOT and İZULAŞ, in Samsun, SAMULAŞ after completing their driving test within one
week from today, the climax of a period of Electra.

Figure 4.2: Doruk Electra

4.3. Etox

Ercan Malkoç is a Turkish businessman who visited a famous autoshow in Europe,and he

wanted to touch a Lamborghini but he couldn’t because stand official didn’t let him touch.
Malkoç worried about this situation and he determined “Why couldn’t i produce my own car?”
and he founded ETOX and first ETOX model Zafer was manufactured in 2007.Zafer was a
diesel engine car.Then Etox produced in 2013 Etox E-V cooperation with Middle East
Technical University. Etox E-V is first fully electric car for Turkey.
E-V has 120-150 km range and charging time takes 6 to 8 hours any AC socket in the house.
Fast charging time is 45 minutes.

55
 Figure 4.3: Etox E-V

4.4. Hacettepe EVT(Elektrikli Vasıta Türkiye) S1

Hacettepe University developed by electric car prototype EVT S1 was displayed.

Hacettepe University Technopark in on-site engineers and university lecturers made by EVT
S1, a three-year of work. Chasis high strength aluminium material produced from the vehicle's
bonnet part is due to fiber and polymer material doesn't give wieght. 100 makes about 4 Liras
in kilometers of electricity consumption of the vehicle, the project passes the serial production
Ankara-İstanbul travel 18 Liras would make it possible.
In 7,5 seconds from 0 to 100 that can reach EVT S1, 141 horsepower motor power and 180-
kilometer maximum speed value. It was quickly filled 30 minutes at fast charging and 10 hour
in regular regular charging. The vehicle can travel 35 kWh battery capacity is about 300
kilometers of roads.

EVT S1, if series production approval certificate is gottten, it will be ready to go on

the road. In the first place, with a planned production capacity of 1000 pieces. Considerable
price of EVT S1 is 50000$.

56
 Figure 4.4: Hacettepe EVT-S1

4.5. TÜBİTAK
In 2013,TÜBİTAK, KAMAK (Kamu Araştırmaları Destek Kurumu) made a call that
has a code 1007-BSTB-2013-01.
Purpose of call: is electric vehicle technology as critical nature of existing components in the
development of domestic and, consequently, developed this component of domestic generation
of an electric vehicle.

Figure 4.5

57
 Figure 4.6

Minister of Science, Industry and Technology of Turkey Fikri Işık introduced shared
car camouflage images of prototype Turkish Government’s automobile project in October
2015.
Fikri Işık said:“Saab 9-3 model of all intellectual property rights purchased” then he said:
“the removal of the vehicle from series production until the end of the 2019, 4. prototype will
be ready on December 22 that is SUV. TUBITAK will begin to install own technology and test.
It is important for us here at the end of 2016, the turn a fleet of 30-40 vehicles to be produced.
To test the all-terrain and climatic conditions. The vehicle will be released to the public in May
2018 final design. Until the end of the 2019, we offer to our people, with the seriesl production.
The car would be in B, C and D segment can use as a means of transmitting the light facing the
authorities, he added. Native to make the car's family budget transfer to the vehicle's battery
"100 km will give you the answer. It cost 40-50 Liras per month. You're not going to stop for
charging when the battery is weak, the generator will be activated, when you want to go to
İstanbul from Ankara.”

In partnership with Mattias Bergman, CEO of Saab's take on Turkey gave information
about the domestic automobile project.
“As you know, we signed an agreement with the Turkish Government. It will be the pride of
Turkish Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) and domestic automobile we work together in
the project. Turkey is a source of pride for their native produce his car. It is in this sense in the
international market and does not have a Turkish car marketed. Turkey has an important
position between Europe and the Middle East. The country's car development, start to banish

58
economic contribution. Negotiations for a long time. But we signed an agreement on May 28.
Our company operates a few areas are one of them, design. Our engineering team and is
conducting a joint study of the vehicle's design of TUBITAK. In addition, other partners in
Turkey also contributes to us in the development of design, in this sense, we are working very
hard. Right now, we've prepared a few prototypes and presented them to the Minister yesterday,
These vehicles are different in appearance, weight, and prototypes. Vehicles a few days ago,
were touted by our partners in Turkey. Thomas except production marketting and development
with our partners in the sharing of information. In this topic, the owners of the factory,
engineers in Turkey we have training and we work hand in hand with them. Information, parts,
you will be provided with the production system. We will share additional resources for
development. Source sharing is a little different. Here we do not have the facilities of others
make us TUBITAK. TUBITAK's engineers are carrying out public work force and laboratories.
The power engineering, physical conditions, we have our knowledge and our resources.
Sweden's Government, the Chinese Government and now Turkey up with and share the same
vision to create a sustainable future.”

Figure 4.7: Saab 9-3 platform

59
5.CONCLUSION

Battery Electric Vehicles are in a state of rapid development which will offer competitive
purchase costs and better range.

5.1. BEV concepts

BEVs are the simplest type of EV from a conceptual perspective, using electrical power
from a single source the electrochemical battery to power one or more electric motors.
Typically, a single electric motor is connected to the front axle through a simple one or two-
speed gearbox, but there are several other possible variations in the driveline architectures. One
significant variation is to use a series of four “hub motors” attached to each wheel rather than a
single drive motor. Of course, the battery itself is composed of many cells that are composed
into modules, which in turn are grouped into packs. This can be done various ways using series
and parallel connections between groups of cells and/or modules. BEV electric motors typically
operate at a few hundred volts, meaning that a minimum of about 100 cells is required (e.g.,
100 Li-ion batteries with cell voltage of 3.6 V could produce 360 V if arranged in series).
However some vehicles have many more but smaller cells, up to tens of thousands, configured
in complex arrays with parallel and series connections. Also, in addition to the basic battery
pack, a “balance of plant” of thermal management and voltage-monitoring systems is required
to prevent overcharging and to detect earlier-than-expected cell degradation or failure. The
battery pack is typically the largest and most expensive component of the BEV, often by
several-fold for longer-range vehicles. Especially since it is the sole power source, BEV
applications require combined performance from the battery in producing both power (for
acceleration) and energy (for sustained driving range). In practice, this means that battery
engineers must strive to provide the best combination possible for the vehicle application they
are targeting, within the limits of the battery chemistry they are using. Finally, it is worth noting
that one concept for BEVs is to have the battery pack itself be readily removable and
“swappable.” This allows for extended driving range through the use of battery swap stations
and an arrangement for consumers to lease rather than own their batteries. Systems have been
demonstrated that can accomplish the battery swap very rapidly, in around 1 min for the battery
pack swap itself and a few minutes for the complete operation . While somewhat complex to

60
administer, this type of service could help to reduce the key issue of limited range coupled with
long recharge time for BEVs.

5.2. BEV Drivetrain Costs

The costs of manufacturing BEVs versus conventional vehicles can be estimated

through a series of “parts replacement” exercises, where the components not needed in the BEV
are “stripped out” and the replacement components needed for the EV are added in. This method
has been widely used, and is generally appropriate for BEVs that are built along those lines for
example, on a conventional vehicle chassis “platform” that is adapted for use for the EV.
Alternately, one may consider the concept of a much lighter weight design, to reduce the costs
of the EV drivetrain components. This is a strategy widely advocated by some industry analysts.
Clearly, this basic vehicle design choice has major implications for BEV driveline costs, as
smaller and cheaper drivetrain components can be traded off with the costs of producing lighter
(but typically more expensive) vehicle chassis based on high-strength steel, aluminum, and/or
carbon fiber composite materials.
In a series of studies in the late 1990s we reviewed and analyzed the costs of complete EVs as
well as their drivetrains and key components. Subsequent to these studies, noteworthy efforts
in the 2000s included those by university and other research groups.

5.3. Batteries for BEVs

The costs of batteries for BEVs were the subject of many cost studies in the 1990s,
including two by us. Consider two sets of battery assumptions for a 200-mile range BEV: (1)
150 Wh/kg and $250/kWh and (2) a much more optimistic case of 300 Wh/kg and $200/kWh.
In the first case (their base case) the battery cost for the 200 mile range BEV is $12,000 and in
the optimistic case it is $8,400 (for batteries of 48 and 42 kWh, respectively, owing to the
smaller and lighter vehicle and battery possible with the better battery energy density). Eaves
and Eaves arrive at a Li-ion battery cost of $16,125 for a BEV that has a 64.5 kWh battery pack
that makes it capable of a 300-mile (500 km) range (thus assuming a battery specific energy of
143 Wh/kg). This is derived from a $250/kWh estimate for high-volume production of Li-ion
batteries in a previous national lab study. Consider a much smaller BEV battery pack of 25

61
kWh as “the lower limit considered acceptable for an electric vehicle.” They estimate a current
cost of $25,000 (or $1,000/kWh), with year 2030 “optimistic,” “pessimistic,” and “average”
estimates of $5,000, $7,500, and $6,250, respectively (translating to $200/kWh, $300/ kWh,
and $250/kWh). One difficulty with some of these studies of battery costs for vehicles is the
need to consider the BMS or more generally the “balance of plant” needed to support the use
of the battery in the vehicle. This is especially important in the case of Li-ion batteries, which
have significant needs for cooling and are sensitive to overcharging. The BMS is a significant
cost item for advanced batteries, acting as the integration component for the battery and vehicle
systems, but some studies are not explicit about the extent to which they include the costs of
the BMS as well as the battery pack itself.

5.4. Electric Motors and Motor Controllers For BEVs

The electric motor and motor controller propulsion systems comprise the other key set
of components for BEVs, along with the battery power system. The motor controller in
particular has evolved in recent years with the use of insulated gate bipolar transistors (IGBTs)
as high-power switching devices in place of the previously used MOSFETs (metal oxide
semiconductor field-effect transistors). Along with better integration of other components and
reduced parts counts, motor controllers have improved in performance and decreased in cost
and complexity over the past few decades. Meanwhile, electric motors have also improved in
terms of their torque and power density and energy efficiency characteristics.

5.5. Accessory Systems for BEVs

BEVs require battery chargers that can be included onboard the vehicle or even
integrated into the motor controller unit. There has been previous experience with both
conductive and inductive charging systems, but a new standard has emerged based on the SAE
J1772 standard and a plug design pioneered by the Yazaki Group. This standard allows up to
what has come to be defined as “Level 2” charging at power levels of up to 16. 8 kW (120–240
V AC power at up to 70 A). Along with these charging standards, an active area of research and
industry interest is the interface between the charging system, and when and how it is operated,
and the local utility grid. For details on these BEV charging and utility grid issues, see this

62
recent review. Also the presence of a fuel-fired heater can have a significant impact on vehicle
energy use, and to some extent cost as well. For example, for use in colder climates the
1997/1998 General Motors S-10 Electric pickup truck had the option of a fuel-fired heater,
using diesel fuel stored in a 1.7- gallon tank . The off-board charger (if any) and potential
addition of a fuel-fired heater are the main accessory issues for BEVs compared to regular
vehicles.

5.6. Energy-Use Costs for BEVs

The following sections describe the energy use of BEVs, and the costs associated with
the electric fuel that they consume. Unlike PHEVs, which use a somewhat complex
combination of electricity and another fuel, or FCEVs, which use hydrogen with uncertain costs
in a consumer setting, the costs of refueling BEVs are relatively more straightforward and well-
understood.

5.7. Energy Use of BEVs

The energy use of BEVs is relatively straightforward to estimate, particularly in the

absence of auxiliary fuel-fired heaters that have been proposed for colder climates as
alternatives to electric heaters. Since the amount of waste heat produced from the resistance of
the BEV battery system and electric motor controller is much lower than from conventional
vehicles, auxiliary cabin heating can be an issue. Energy use of BEVs is typically expressed in
watt-hours per mile or kilometer (Wh/mile or Wh/km), and can be defined and measured at the
battery pack terminals
or the “wall plug.” This value typically ranges from about 200 Wh/mile (124 Wh/km) for small
EVs to up to 400 Wh/mile (249 Wh/km) for larger vehicles. For example, the extensively tested
Toyota RAV4 “small SUV” type of EV has an energy-use value (measured at the battery
terminals) of 301 Wh/mile or 187 Wh/km. This energy use rate is based on reported energy use
of 270 Wh/mi (168 Wh/km) city and 340 Wh/mi (211 Wh/km) highway, and assuming the
“55/45” city/highway mileage split established for U.S. government certification purposes. As
BEV technology slowly improves in the future, vehicle energy use should also be somewhat
reduced (assuming vehicle performance remains relatively constant). This could be the result

63
of improved motors and motor controllers, improved batteries with lower internal resistance
characteristics, better integration of components, and lower auxiliary system losses. In an
overall sense, however, vehicle size and weight and level of performance are the key
determinants of overall energy use, as is the case for conventional vehicles.

5.8. Cost Of Electric Fuel

Electricity for BEVs is generally less costly than other fuels including gasoline. Many
utilities now offer special “time of use” (TOU) rates for EV owners that can be used in
conjunction with separate utility meters to charge for the electricity used for EV charging. Since
BEVs can typically be recharged at night when power is typically cheaper, they benefit from
these TOU rates. Furthermore, separate metering allows BEV owners to prevent their electricity
usage from accruing to their regular household electrical bill, which in many regions has a tiered
structure that penalizes high rates of usage. For a recent review of the electricity costs associated
with BEV charging in various regions of the United States, including utility regions where TOU
rates are available. The study examines three different gasoline price periods in comparing the
costs of fueling BEVs and conventional vehicles, and finds that depending on region and price
period (during 2008–2009 when prices where highly variable), BEVs can cost consumers from
a few hundred to a few thousand dollars per year less than conventional vehicles to fuel. The
savings associated with charging off-peak versus on-peak is found to be relatively modest,
however, on the order of $1.00–$2.00/day. This suggests that to avoid on-peak charging,
consumers may need stronger “price signals” than are typically available an issue that could
become important with significant levels of BEV market penetration.

5.9. External Costs of BEVs

The external costs of BEVs differ from those of conventional vehicles in that air
pollutants are produced in different places and in different types and amounts, and there are
reduced externalities associated with oil use, GHG emissions, and vehicle noise. We have
estimated the difference in external costs between BEVs and conventional vehicles to be in the
range of 0.4–3.7 cents per mile, with a best estimate of 1.1 cents per mile (in year 2000 US$).
These external cost differences between BEVs and conventional vehicles are primarily in the

64
form of air pollution and oil-use related externalities, with climate change and noise being
smaller factor.

5.10. Discussion of BEV Cost Estimates

Along with the earlier “generation 1” cost studies conducted in the 1990s, a few
additional BEV cost studies have been performed more recently in the 2000s, and these are also
reviewed here. For an earlier review and presentation of modeling results focusing on the details
of the cost studies conducted in the early 1990s. The BEV cost studies conducted thus far, by
academic groups, government research laboratories, and consulting firms, have generally
concluded that the incremental retail purchase prices of BEVs were at least a few and up to tens
of thousands of dollars more than those of conventional vehicles. However, it is important to
note that studies that have considered vehicle costs on a lifetime basis have often shown that
the additional purchase costs of BEVs can potentially be recouped through reduced fuel and
other operational costs over time. Key factors in that regard are not only the relative vehicle
costs, but also the relative costs of electricity and gasoline for consumers in particular settings.
Present the initial cost and lifetime cost estimates from studies performed by government
agencies, coalitions, and research organizations from the mid1990s through the present. As
shown in the table, all studies conclude that BEV manufacturing costs and retail prices will be
higher than conventional vehicle costs in the near-term, but a few studies suggest that BEV
costs could relatively quickly drop to levels comparable to those of conventional vehicles,
particularly on a lifetime basis. The differences in the results of the studies summarized in table
can be explained partly by variations in assumptions regarding the types of vehicles analyzed,
the assumed volume of vehicle production, the range and energy efficiency of the analyzed
vehicle, the life and cost of the battery, and the costs of accessories and additional equipment
needed for the BEV. This additional equipment includes battery chargers, vehicle heating and
cooling systems, and electrical power steering units. Key characteristics in this regard are called
out in the table, but we refer readers to the original studies for additional details, with regard to
key assumptions and the relative level of the full range of BEV drivetrain components that are
included.
Overall, BEV costs are estimated to be from ten thousand dollars or more in the near-
term than the comparable ICE vehicles to which they are compared, falling to a projected

65
several thousand dollars in the future in high-volume production in some studies (and
depending on the size and type of battery pack assumed).

Figure 5.1

5.11. Conclusions And Future Opportunities

The newly developed model VECTOR21 allows taking into account a number of
influencing parameters and to better quantify possible outcomes of future developments in the
vehicle market. However, it is important to understand that the results shown are not predictions
of the future. They have to be interpreted as scenarios examining different pathways and
demonstrating the relevance of specific variables. With respect to future market prospects of
electric vehicles, the scenarios shown made clear that there exist several pathways with
significantly different results. When taking into consideration competitive technologies,
especially advanced ICE and hybrid vehicles, a fast diffusion of electric vehicles into the mass
market is not to be taken for granted. In the baseline scenario based on a set of plausible
assumptions for framework conditions only a slight proportion of EREVs and BEVs will be
found on the market for new vehicles and also in the vehicle stock by 2030. Nevertheless, in
another scenario with more challenging but not unrealistic conditions electric vehicles will

66
dominate the market in the long run. Battery cost development as well as CO2 target values and
penalties have been identified as key influencing factors for the German market. An increasing
price of crude oil was found to be less significant. This is in line with an earlier analysis of the
effect of target values versus oil price and likely to be similar for other European vehicle
markets. Given the range of possible outcomes and the relevance of specific influencing
parameters, it is obvious that there is a need to set favorable framework conditions well in
advance to ensuring sustainable transport for the future while allowing for security in planning
processes. This requires primarily action from politics shaping responsible targets and
incentives but also addresses manufacturers and their strategy for R&D investments and
marketing as well as pricing of new vehicle technologies. Finally, a change of consumer’s
expectations regarding the performance of their vehicles could assist in accelerating the pace
toward sustainable mobility. Focusing on technical parameters for both batteries and fuel cells,
remarkable breakthroughs have been achieved in the past. However, a number of issues are still
to be solved in order to ensure performance and safety in the long run while significantly
decreasing costs. Especially smaller hybrid vehicles that today make use of the NiMH
technology could benefit from lithium-ion batteries with high power and energy density
allowing to apply smaller and therefore cheaper battery packs]. 576 Peter Mock et al. Additional
electricity demand from the transport sector is relatively low even for scenario 2 with a
highmarket share of electric vehicles (∼4% of total electricity demand in Germany in 2030).
However, in order to decrease CO2 emissions on a WTW basis, it is necessary to ensure use of
electricity from renewable energy sources as shown in scenarios 2, 2a, and 2b. A temporary
increase of costs from a customer’s perspective is anticipated for all scenarios. Eventually
learning curve effects and a balancing of costs and benefits between customers and
manufacturers could limit the increase of RCO, depending on the development of the price for
crude oil and electricity. When interpreting the results, it is important to keep in mind existing
limitations of the model. Customer behavior with respect to the choice of vehicles based on
individual driving cycles and possibly irrational expectations of the maximum driving range of
vehicles may not be modeled in an entirely realistic way. Also, aspects of the creation of a new
infrastructure, for example, for charging stations, as well as lead time for manufacturers to
invest in new production facilities could only partially be considered. Finally, a life cycle
analysis (LCA), including the production of battery packs and fuel cell stacks as well as an
assessment of possible negative effects resulting from a dependence on raw materials like

67
lithium, neodymium, and platinum would be desirable. Hence, further research and a refinement
of the VECTOR21 model are intended. This will also include extending the number of vehicle
technologies covered, allowing for additional hybrid vehicle concepts and commercial vehicles,
as well as adapting it to other regional or geographic areas.

NOMENCLATURE

BEV Battery electric vehicle

CADC Common Artemis driving cycle
CNG Compressed natural gas
EREV Extended range electric vehicle
FCHEV Fuel cell hybrid electric vehicle
FE Fuel economy package number
GHG Greenhouse gas
Gt Billion tons
HEV Hybrid electric vehicle
ICE Internal combustion engine
NEDC New European driving cycle
PEM Proton exchange membrane
PJ 1015 joule
PHEV Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
RCO Relevant cost of ownership
R&D Research and development
TCO Total cost of ownership
TTW Tank-to-wheel
WTT Well-to-tank
WTW Well-to-wheel

68
REFERENCES
1. The New York Times (10 August 1920)
2. Kirsch, D., The Electric Vehicle and The Burden of History (Rutgers University Press,2000)
3. Time (October 1953)
4. www.intrepid-travelers.com
5. Georgano, N. Electric Vehicles (Shire Publications, 1996)
6. New Scientist (3 October 1974, p.47)
7. McCahill, T. ‘GM’s Mini-Mini Cars’, Mechanix Illustrated (October 1969, p.76)
8. Barret, R. ‘Plugged in Early: Briggs had a Hybrid in’70s’, Milwaukee-Wisconsin Journal
Sentinel (10 March 2008)
9. MacDowall, R. and Burke, A. ‘Performance Testing of the Ford/GE Second Generation
Single-Shaft Electric Propulsion System’, US DOE (June 1993)
10. ‘After 40 years, GE’s father of EV R&D finally sees tipping point’, GE Reports (4
November 2010)
11. Dale, R. The Sinclair Story (Gerald Duckworth, 1985)
12. Meiners, J. ‘Remnants of the evil past’, Car and Driver (June 2011)
13. Witzenberg, G. ‘At Witz’ End – EV1 – The Real Story’, Autobloggreen (August 2008)
14. Dean, P. and Reed, M. ‘An Electric Start: Media, Billboards, web Site Herald Launch of
the EV1’, Los Angeles Times (6 December 1996)
15. Imagine the Impact, GM promotional short (1990)
16. ‘Democratic Convention Features High Tech’, ABC News (www.abcnews.go.com, August
1997)
17. Taylor, M. ‘Owners Charged Up Over Electric Cars, But Manufacturers Have Pulled the
Plug’, San Francisco Chronicle (22 April 2005)
18. Roe, S. ‘Supercar: the Tanking of an American Dream’, Chicago Tribune (2003)
19. Taylor, A. ‘The Birth of the Prius’, Fortune (March 6, 2006)
20. Shitazaki, H. The Prius That Shook The World (Nikkan Kogyo Shimbun Ltd, 1999)
21. Thornton, E. ‘Japan’s Hybrid Cars’, Businessweek (15 December 1997)
22. Bartlett, J. Motor Trend (August 2005)
23. Shitazaki, H. The Prius That Shook The World (Nikkan Kogyo Shimbun Ltd, 1999)
24. Garrett, J. ‘Behind The Wheel: Honda Insight’, New York Times (4 June 2000)
25. Pollack, A. ‘Toyota Prius: It’s easier to be Green’, New York Times (19 November 2000)

69
26. Jensen, C. ‘On the Town in Three Green Machines’, New York Times (14 April 2002)
27. Hirsch, J. ‘Attorneys General Win More Time to Ponder Honda Civic Settlement’, Los
Angeles Times (14 February 2012)
28. Robinson, A. ‘The Green Brigade’, Car and Driver (May 2001)
29. Robinson, A. ‘The Green Brigade’, Car and Driver (May 2001)
30. Chirco, N. ‘2004 Chevrolet Silverado Hybrid – One Year Test Update’, Motor Trend
(February 2005)
31. Hope, G. ‘Toyota Prius’, Auto Express (November 2004)
32. Boxwell, M. The Electric Car Guide – G-Wiz (Greenstream Publishing, 2010)
33. Biers, D. ‘Japan’s Car Makers Are Thinking Electric’, The Day (18 July 1991)
34. Hudson, P. ‘Brief Drive: Nissan Hypermini’, The Daily Telegraph (10 October 10 2000)
35. Gibbs, N. ‘First Drive: TH!NK City’, Auto Express (April 2008)
36. Ramsay, M. ‘Nissan says LEAF Electric Will Be Profitable wth US Plant’, Wall St Journal
(13 May 2010)
37. M. Granovskii, I. Dincer, M.A. Rosen, J. Power Sources 159 (2006) 1186.
38. C. Zamfirescu, I. Dincer, J. Power Sources 185 (2008) 459.
39. C. Zamfirescu, I. Dincer, Fuel Process. Technol. 90 (2009) 729.
40. Atlantic Hydrogen. Hydrogen Fueled Vehicles can be Ordered Today.
http://www.atlantichydrogen. net/vehicles.html, 2009 (accessed 10.10.09).
41. EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2009, With Projections to 2030. Department of
Energy/Energy Information Administration, Report 0383.
42. M. Granovskii, I. Dincer, M.A. Rosen, Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 31 (2006) 127.
43. P.L. Spath, M.K. Mann, Life Cycle Assessment of Hydrogen Production via Natural Gas
Steam Reforming, Report NREL/TP-570-27637, 2001.
44. J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meira Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, K. Maskell
(Eds.), Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change, Cambridge University Press,
NewYork, 1996.
45. Australian Greenhouse Office. Emissions Analysis of Alternative Fuels for Heavy Vehicles,
Report EV45A/2/F3C, 2009.
46. S. Basrur, D. Pengelly, M. Campbell, R. Macfarlane, A. Li-Muller, Toronto Air Quality
Index: Health Links Analysis, Report, Toronto Public Health, 2001.

70
47. DoE Fuel Economy. United States Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency, and
Renewable Energy. http://www.fueleconomy.gov., 2009 (accessed 01.09.09).
48. M. Rantik, Life Cycle Assessment of Five Batteries for Electric Vehicles Under Different
Charging Regimes, Report, KFB-Stockholm, 1999. http://www.kfb.se/pdfer/M-99-28.pdf,
2009 (accessed 10.10.09).
49. C. Handley, N. Brandon, R. Vorst, J. Power Sources 106 (2002) 344. Economic and
Environmental Comparison of Conventional and Alternative Vehicle Options 17
50. J.C. Sparrow, Alternative Transportation Fuels: Issues and Developments, Nova Science
Publishers, New York, 2003.
51. M. Granovskii, I. Dincer, M.A. Rosen, J. Power Sources 157 (2006) 411.
52. M.F. Hordeski, Alternative Fuels: The Future of Hydrogen, CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA,
2007.
53. P. Meier, Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Systems and Applications for
Climate Change Policy Analysis, Report No. UWFDM-1181, Fusion Technology Institute,
2002.
54. S. Chan, H. Ho, Y. Tian, J. Power Sources 109 (2002) 111.
55. M. Granovskii, I. Dincer, M.A. Rosen, Chem. Eng. J. 120 (2006) 193.

71