Tomorrow’s Mobility

Sustainable Technologies for the automotive sector

Week 3 – Session 6 – Electric or Hybrid?

Fabrice Le Berr

Introduction

I- ET4 study: Assumptions and boundary conditions

II- Results – Small city cars
III- Results – Medium cars

Conclusion

© IFPEN / IFP School 2018

Introduction
The project E4T, a large study on the transport sector, was carried out by IFP Energies Nouvelles on
behalf of the French Agency for the Energy and the Environment (ADEME). In the course of this
project, the different factors that influence the road transport were studied from energy-based,
economic and environmental points of view. Thus, an objective comparison of conventional, hybrid
and electric vehicles in terms of costs and emissions is possible. The main results of the study are
shown in this lesson.

The idea is to provide the clues to answer the following questions: electric or hybrid? Which one is
better from an environmental and economic point of view?

In the first part of this lesson, some context and the assumptions made for the study are explained.
In the second part the results are shown. As this is a French study, all the assumptions will refer to
the French market and energy sector, strongly based on electricity produced via nuclear power.
Study ET4: Electric or Hybrid?

Lead by :

E4T: French study

• Energy, Economics
and Environmental

• Factors that influence

the road Transport

E4T: French study Nuclear Power

I- ET4 study: Assumptions and boundary conditions

To start with, two important methodologies that ET4 is based on should be recapitulated:
The Life Cycle Analysis, LCA, investigates the total CO2 emissions, while the Total Cost of Ownership,
TCO, considers the costs of the different options.

Week 3 – Session 7 – Electric or Hybrid ?, p. 1

1
© IFPEN / IFP School 2018
 Methodologies
LCA: Life Cycle Analysis TCO: Total Cost of Ownership

GHG - CO2

This is basically the subject of the study: Calculating LCAs and TCOs for different configurations.
Both are complicated calculations that are not shown in detail here. However, some points are
important:
First, the calculations are done in 2 different time scales: TODAY and 2030. Of course, for 2030
some predictions are made.
Second, the study includes a broad range of vehicles sizes and types: from passenger cars to heavy
duty vehicles. Here, the focus is laid on the passenger car results only. In fact, only the results for 2
car segments are presented: the small city car, which is typically the little vehicle people use to
commute and for everyday travel, AND the medium car, which is a bigger vehicle that is usually
used for families and bigger distances.
Finally, what’s more important is the inputs of those calculations, including the powertrain
architecture, the technological evolutions, the driving profile and the energy resources and mix.
Context of the E4T study
When: Small city car Medium car
Today / 2030 segment A segment C

Inputs
Powertrain Technological Energy
Driving profile
architecture evolutions resources & Mix

The assumed inputs in detail are:

 The powertrain architecture refers to whether it is a thermal, a hybrid or an electric
powertrain. For the small city car, dedicated to urban driving, only 2 powertrain
architectures are considered: a gasoline-powered vehicle, and an electric vehicle with an
autonomy of 200km. This is because most of the players in the powertrain business agree
that the small city car market will be dominated by either of these two.

For the medium car segment, everything is considered: diesel and gasoline powertrains are
considered as conventional architecture; hybrid architectures include: mild hybrid gasoline ,
a hybrid powersplit gasoline and a plug-in hybrid powersplit gasoline; for electric
architectures, vehicles with 200 and 400km of autonomy are investigated.

Week 3 – Session 7 – Electric or Hybrid ?, p. 2

2
© IFPEN / IFP School 2018
 Assumption 1: Powertrain architectures

Small city car Medium car

Conventional Gasoline Conventional Gasoline Conventional Diesel

Electric Hybrid powersplit

Mild Hybrid Gasoline
Gasoline
Plug-in Hybrid powersplit Gasoline

Electric Electric (autonomy ++)

Source: wikimedia, by M 93, CC BY-SA 3.0 de Source: wikimedia, by Luca Mascaro

 The second important input considers the technological evolutions of the powertrain and
the vehicle. Thanks to the knowledge on the future powertrain technologies, IFP evaluated
the potential improvements of the thermal engines, the electric motors and the batteries.
These improvements lead to better performance, lower emissions and lower prices. For
example, in the estimations for the batteries, an expected a price divided by 2 in the future
was taken into account. Until 2030, some improvements on the weight, aerodynamics and
pneumatics are expected as well. The weight reduction in specific will lead to lower CO2
emissions and will reduce the price of the vehicle.
Assumption 2: Technological Evolutions of the Powertrain and the Vehicle

The assumed inputs

Between today and 2030, evolutions of:

Powertrain Vehicle

IC engine Battery Electric engine Weight Aerodynamics Pneumatics

Impacts

Emissions
Performances Cost
(global / local)

 The third entry, the driving profile and usage, takes several points into account, like the
length of ownership, the journeys and the annual mileage. It was assumed that the car will
last 10 years since this is the average age of the car fleet in France. Only every day journeys
are considered, like commuting and so forth. Long-distance trips are not taken into account
because they are, for the moment, not feasible for electric vehicles. For electric and plug-in
vehicles, it is assumed that they will only require one recharge per day. The annual mileage
considered is 12 000km for the small city car and 15 000 km for the medium car. Regarding
the driving profile, fuel consumption and CO2 emissions are measured based on the WLTP
cycles and on real specific profiles. Results for small cars are calculated on urban driving
profiles while results for family cars on the WLTP.

Week 3 – Session 7 – Electric or Hybrid ?, p. 3

3
© IFPEN / IFP School 2018
 Assumption 3: Driving profile & usage
The Assumed Inputs

Driving profile Test cycle

10 years 50km / day 1 recharge Small city car Medium car

/ day Driving profile Urban cycle WLTP

Annual mileage 12 000 km 15 000 km

 The last hypothesis concerns the energy mix that provides electricity. In the calculations of
TCO and LCA, the French case is considered. That means a low carbon energy mix mainly
based on nuclear energy (around 70%).

Assumption 4: Energy resources

The Assumed Inputs

Energy Mix for electricity: the French case

II- Results – Small city cars

Before starting with the results for the first case, the small city cars, the manner the results are
presented should be explained:
In the TCO, the cost of the initial investment is shown in red, then in green the cost of the energy to
propel the car, in blue the cost of maintenance and in grey the insurances. The results are
presented both for today and for 2030 for gasoline vehicles and for electric vehicles.

Week 3 – Session 7 – Electric or Hybrid ?, p. 4

4
© IFPEN / IFP School 2018
 Results
Segment A - TCO
40
Gasoline Electric

30 Advantage: Electric Vehicle

26.0 26.9 26.9
24.9
TCO [ c€ / km ]

• EV already interesting today for

20 a total ownership duration of 10
years

10 • Importance of incentives

0
Today 2030 Today 2030
Investment Energies Maintenance Insurance

The results show that the electric vehicle is already interesting today for a total ownership duration
of 10 years; in France, the government offers an aid of 6 000€ to people who buy electric vehicles.
Of course, this drastically decreases the price of the initial investment.
In 2030, this incentive is expected to disappear, BUT thanks to cheaper batteries, electric vehicles
remain the most interesting option from the TCO point of view. However, attention has to be paid
to the size of the battery, which has to remain limited to restrict the cost of the vehicle.

Concerning LCA analysis and CO2 emissions, again, first a short description of the graphs:
For both gasoline and EVs, in red the CO2 emitted during vehicle production is shown, and in yellow
the CO2 emitted by the tires production. For EVs, blue represents the CO2 emitted by the battery
manufacturing, and green represents CO2 emitted by the vehicle use – taking into account the well-
to-wheel energy balance. For gasoline vehicles, the CO2 emitted during the vehicle use is in grey.

Results
Segment A - LCA

160 Advantage: Electric Vehicle

140
(g CO2 eq./person.km)

• French electricity is a low-

GHG emissions

120
carbon energy source
100

80 • Less CO2 emissions for both

architectures
60
1. For gasoline engine, thanks to
40 improvements in the ICE
20

0
2. For electric engine, thanks to
Today 2030 Today 2030
weight reduction and
Vehicle Life Cycle Tires Life Cycle
Battery Life Cycle Use stage vehicle (liquid fuel) performance enhancements
Use stage vehicle (electricity)

Electric vehicles display the most outstanding results for the life cycle analysis. This is due to the
fact that these vehicles emit no CO2 from tank-to-wheel and that French electricity is a low-carbon

Week 3 – Session 7 – Electric or Hybrid ?, p. 5

5
© IFPEN / IFP School 2018
energy source with a high ratio of nuclear energy. If the European electricity mix is considered,
instead of the French case, CO2 emissions would be a lot higher.
Between today and 2030, a strong improvement in terms of CO2 emissions can be seen for both
architectures. Indeed, for the gasoline vehicle, lower fuel consumption is expected, leading to lower
CO2 emissions for tank-to-wheel balance, thanks to improvements in the internal combustion
engines. At the same time, a lower energy consumption for the electrified vehicles is expected as
well, thanks to weight reduction and performance enhancements.

III- Results – Medium cars

For the medium cars, the first result shows the TCO evaluation in 2030. Here, all the powertrain
architectures are considered: gasoline, diesel, mild hybrid, full hybrid, electric and an electric
vehicle with a strong battery that increases the range.

Results
Segment C - TCO
50

New
40 36.8 battery 37.5
35.1 35.1
33.1 32.9 +3.2
TCO [ c€ / km ]

30 29.1

20

10

0
Plug-in Electric
Gasoline Diesel Mild Hybrid Full Hybrid Electric
Hybrid Autonomy ++
Investment Energies Maintenance Insurance

2030

It can be seen that the electric vehicle is still the most interesting architecture in 2030, even
without a financial aid. However, if the driver has to buy a new battery, this changes the outcome
and increases the TCO. Moreover, if the driver requests higher autonomy, the price of the battery
will increase so the electric vehicle won’t be as attractive. As for conventional vehicles, gasoline will
be cheaper than diesel.

Week 3 – Session 7 – Electric or Hybrid ?, p. 6

6
© IFPEN / IFP School 2018
 Results
Segment C - LCA
180
160
Advantage: Electric
(g CO2 eq./person.km)

140
Vehicle and Plug-in Hybrid
120
GHG emissions

especially for the French energy

100 mix

80
60
40
20
0
Plug-in
Gasoline Diesel Mild Hybrid Full Hybrid Electric
Hybrid
Vehicle Life Cycle Tire Life Cycle Battery Life Cycle
Use stage vehicle (liquid fuel) Use stage vehicle (electricity)
Today

The Life Cycle Analysis of the medium car TODAY shows that electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids
display the lowest CO2 emissions, especially for the French energy mix. The results are not the same
if the European energy mix is considered. If looking at the gasoline full hybrid vehicle, like the
Toyota Prius architecture, it comes next in terms of CO2 emissions. As of now, this is the best
solution with a thermal engine, and its fuel consumption is the most outstanding.

Results
Segment C - LCA
140

120 Advantage: Electric

Vehicle and Plug-in
100
Hybrid
(g CO2 eq./person.km)

80 if limited autonomy
GHG emissions

AND daily recharges

60

40

20

0
Plug-in Electric
Gasoline Diesel Mild Hybrid Full Hybrid Electric
Hybrid Autonomy ++
Vehicle Life Cycle Tire Life Cycle Battery Life Cycle
Use stage vehicle (liquid fuel) Use stage vehicle (electricity)

2030

As for the Life Cycle analysis for medium cars in 2030, between today and 2030, a large decrease in
CO2 emissions can be observed, regardless of the architecture. Electric vehicles – be it plug-in
hybrids or battery electric vehicles - display the lowest CO2 emissions. Nevertheless, the electric
vehicle with a higher range is not well ranked because of the CO2 emissions for the manufacture of
the battery.
Moreover, to well use the plug-in hybrid, daily recharges are necessary to optimize the operating
conditions in all electric modes. If this is not the case, the vehicle will operate in sustaining mode
with the internal combustion engine and it will consume liquid fuel, leading to more CO2 emissions.

Week 3 – Session 7 – Electric or Hybrid ?, p. 7

7
© IFPEN / IFP School 2018
Conclusion
So, to conclude, it is very complex to say which technology is best between hybrid, plug-in hybrid or
EVs. Hypotheses are very important and have to be exposed to make a good choice. First of all, the
driving profile (urban / extra urban) is the most important point. The choice will depend on the
annual mileage, the length of ownership, the range required by the driver or the regular recharge.
Lastly, the choice won’t be the same in each country. Indeed, it will depend on the energy
resources of the country (low-carbon electricity or not) and on the environmental policies; an
incentive for buying a car will be very helpful to develop one architecture over another.

Week 3 – Session 7 – Electric or Hybrid ?, p. 8

8
© IFPEN / IFP School 2018