Environmental Benefits of Individually Optimized Electric Vehicle

Battery Range
Xiao Shi School of Industrial Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN,
shi186@purdue.edu
Jian Pan School of Industrial Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN,
jianpan@purdue.edu
Hua Cai School of Industrial Engineering, and Division of Environmental and Ecological
Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, huacai@purdue.edu
Abstract
Electric vehicles (EVs) have received increased attentions in recent years due to their potential
benefits in emission reduction and energy security. Beyond the electricity grids carbon intensity,
the environmental benefits of EV adoption depends largely on the degree of travel
electrification, which is the percentage of vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) that can be powered by
electricity instead of fossil fuels. One key factor that determines travel electrification is the
battery range how far the battery can power the EV to travel with a full charge. Smaller
batteries not only constrain the trips battery electric vehicles (BEV) can make but also raise
range anxiety, both of which affect EV adoption adversely. Larger batteries, however, increase
the cost of the EVs, making the already expansive EVs more unaffordable. Therefore,
identifying the optimal battery range can help improve not only EV adoption but also travel
electrification and associated environmental benefits. Previous studies evaluating the
environmental impacts of EVs often consider EVs with different battery ranges as parallel
scenarios, assuming that all the adopters will choose the same EV in each scenario, neglecting
the heterogeneity of EV adoption. With the different EV models (with different battery ranges)
offered in the market, individual consumers are likely to make different choices, considering
their individual travel needs and access to charging infrastructure. In this study, we developed
an optimization model to identify battery ranges required to satisfy 100% of the driving demands
at the individual level. The model is applied to a case study in Beijing using data from both of
the private vehicles and taxis and existing charging infrastructure. Results from this study
indicate that: 1) over half of the taxis have an optimal battery range within 90 to 180 miles while
45% of the private vehicles have an optimal battery range within 20 to 50 miles, suggesting that
it is feasible to use existing BEV models to replace gasoline vehicles without sacrificing
individual mobility demand; 2) a charging station service range of 2 miles or more is required to
reach significant BEV penetration and travel electrification, showing that the current designed
service range (5 km) may not be sufficient; and 3) the use of fixed battery ranges can
underestimate the adoption rate and the overall travel electrification rate.
Proceedings of the International Symposium on Sustainable Systems and Technologies (ISSN 2329-9169) is
published annually by the Sustainable Conoscente Network. Jun-Ki Choi and Annick Anctil, co-editors 2016.
ISSSTNetwork@gmail.com.
Copyright 2016 by Xiao Shi, Jian Pan, Hua Cai Licensed under CC-BY 3.0.
Cite as:
Travel Electrification Benefits of Individually Optimized Electric Vehicle Battery Range Proc. ISSST, Xiao Shi, Jian
Pan, Hua Cai. Doi information v4 (2016)

X. Shi et al.

Introduction
Electric vehicles (EVs) have received increased attentions in recent years due to their potential
benefits in reducing tailpipe emissions, displacing gasoline consumption, and diversifying
transportation fuel sources (Weber & Matthews, 2008) (IEA, 2013). Beyond the electricity grids
carbon intensity, the environmental benefits of EV adoption depends largely on the degree of
travel electrification, which is the percentage of vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) that can be
powered by electricity instead of fossil fuels (Hawkins, Gausen, & Strmman, 2012). One key
factor that determines travel electrification is the battery range how far the battery can power
the EV to travel with a full charge. Smaller batteries not only constrain the trips battery electric
vehicles (BEV) can make but also raise range anxiety, both of which affect EV adoption
adversely. On the other hand, however, larger batteries increase the cost of the EVs, making the
already expansive EVs more unaffordable. Moreover, larger batteries also add weights to the car,
reducing EVs fuel efficiency and fuel cost saving advantages (Bi, Song, De Kleine, Mi, &
Keoleian, 2015). Therefore, identifying the optimal battery range can help improve not only EV
adoption but also travel electrification and the associated environmental benefits.
Previous studies evaluating the environmental impacts of EVs often consider EVs with different
battery ranges as parallel scenarios, assuming that all the adopters will choose the same EV in
each scenario (Cai & Xu, 2013; Carlson, Lohse-Busch, Duoba, & Shidore, 2009; Elgowainy et
al., 2010; Graver, Frey, & Choi, 2011; MacPherson, Keoleian, & Kelly, 2012; Marshall, Kelly,
Lee, Keoleian, & Filipi, 2013; Raykin, MacLean, & Roorda, 2012; Shen & Han, 2013; Stephan &
Sullivan, 2008; D. Wang et al., 2013). This neglects the heterogeneity of EV adoption. With the
different EV models (with different battery ranges) offered in the market, individual consumers
are likely to make different choices, considering their individual travel needs and access to
charging infrastructure. In this study, we aims to fill this gap by developing an optimization
model to identify the optimal EV battery range at the individual level using real world vehicle
travel data and charging station location information. We applied the model to evaluate both
taxis and private vehicles in Beijing, China as a case study. Models and results from this study
can help guide consumers to better evaluate EVs with different battery ranges, provide
information to automakers on range demands, and inform policy decision makings.
Research Questions
Using vehicle trajectory data from both taxi fleets and private passenger cars in Beijing as a
case study, this study aims to answer the following questions:
What is the distribution of the battery ranges if everyone chooses the optimal battery
size based on their individual travel patterns and existing charging infrastructure?
What are the differences between private vehicles and taxis?
How would using individual optimal ranges change overall electrification rates compared
to fixed battery ranges?

Investigative Method
Data
Charging stations. The locations of existing charging stations in Beijing are extracted using
Baidu API. As of February 2016, there are 522 charging stations installed in Beijing (Figure 1).
Because the coordinate system of Baidu map data is different from WGS, we converted the
coordination data into WGS-84 to be consistent with the vehicle trajectory and map data.

X. Shi et al.

a)

b)

Figure 1. The distribution of the existing charging stations in Beijing. a) Locations of the
charging stations relative to the major roads in Beijing; b) the density of the charging stations for
the region marked as dashed box in a.
Vehicle trajectory data. Vehicle trajectory data of both taxi fleets and private vehicles are used in
this research. The taxi dataset used in this study contains continuous trajectory data of 11,880
taxis (18% of the fleet) in Beijing over a period of three weeks (March 2 to 25, 2009). Details of
this data set can be found in our previous work (Cai, Jia, Chiu, Hu, & Xu, 2014; Shahraki, Cai,
Turkay, & Xu, 2015). The data of private vehicles include 3249 trips collected from 104 vehicles
during the period of June 2012 to March 2013 (H. Wang, Zhang, & Ouyang).
Charging and Adoption
We assumed that vehicles can use the parking time to charge if their parking location is within
the service range of a nearby charging station. The default service range is 2 miles, which in
other words, suggesting that people are willing to travel for 2 miles or less to go to a nearby
charging station and utilize the parking time to charge. The impact of different service ranges
are evaluated. The charging stations are all assumed to be level 2 charging at 220V and 16A
(State Grid Corporation of China, 2010). Charging efficiency is 85% (Kelly, MacDonald, &
Keoleian, 2012). Home charging is not considered in this study. Only battery electric vehicles
(BEVs) are evaluated in this study. BEV adoption is only feasible when the payback time of the
additional investment is within eight years using the saved costs from fuel cost saving. The net
present value (NPV) is calculated with a discount rate of 5%.
Fuel efficiency is 0.35kWh/mile for EVs and 33.2 mile/gal for comparable gasoline vehicles
(DOE, 2013). The electricity price is at $0.083/kWh while the gasoline price is at $3.04/gal.
Battery Range Optimization for BEV
The optimization model identifies the minimum battery range required to fulfill all the travel
needs. This optimal range is different from the maximum daily travel distances because the
vehicles will have access to public charging stations during the day. The objective function, as
shown in Eq. (1), minimizes the excess battery range for the electrical vehicles by taking into
account both travel needs and charging station availability. The constraints are listed in Eq. (2)
to (4). Eq. (2) guarantees that the remaining battery energy of EV j at the end of trip k equals to
the remaining battery energy before trip k pluses the differences between the recharged energy
of EV j at the end of trip k and the consumed energy during trip k. For the purpose of modeling,
the battery energy is measured in miles (how many of miles the vehicle can travel before the

X. Shi et al.

battery is drained). Eq. (3) ensures that the remaining battery energy of EV j before each trip
should be sufficient to finish the trip. Eq. (4) makes sure that the battery cannot be overcharged
(exceeding the maximum capacity) and charging can only happen if the parking location is
within the service range of at least one charging station.

Min ( )

(1)

Subject to:
=1 + 1 - , , ;
0 1 , , ;

= min { - , , 1 }, , ;

(2)
(3)
(4)

where the variables are defined as follows:

1 is the remaining battery energy of EV at before the trip (but after charging, if
charging is available);
is the distance that EV travelled during the trip ;
is the remaining battery energy of EV at the end of the trip ;
1 is the electricity recharged of EV before starting trip ;
Ej is the maximum battery capacity (battery range) of EV ;
is the charging rate at charging station ;
is the charging time of EV at the end of trip ;
is the electricity consumption rate of EV ;
= 1, ;

= 0, .
Results and Discussions
Optimal Battery Range for Taxis
Although some taxis have travel patterns that do not allow them to charge using existing public
charging stations, the optimal battery size for majority (86.9%) vehicles is less than 250 miles.
With a service range of 2 miles (the drivers are willing to drive to a charging station that is within
2 miles relative to their parking locations to utilize the parking time to charge), over 50% of the
vehicles have an optimal battery size of 90-180 miles (Figure 2b). Increasing the service range
only have marginal effect on improving the percentage of vehicles that have an optimal battery
range of 250 miles or less (Figure 3). With a 5-mile service range, the optimal battery size of
90% of the vehicles is less than 250 miles.

X. Shi et al.

a)

b)

Figure 2. The distribution of optimal battery sizes for taxis. A) Cumulative distribution with
different charging station service range; b) probability distribution within the 0-250 miles range at
a 2-mile service range (the percentage is calculated based on all vehicles, including those
whose optimal battery range is over 250 miles)

Optimal Battery Range for Private Vehicles

Private vehicles exhibit very different patterns in terms of optimal battery ranges compared to
taxis. Unlike taxis, over 50% of the private vehicles have an optimal battery size that is less than
500 miles when the service range is only 1 mile (Figure 3a). This result indicates that the
parking locations of private vehicles (e.g. business centers, parking garages) are closer to
existing charging infrastructure. On the other hand, however, around 20% of the private vehicles
require extremely large batteries in order to fulfill all travel demand using BEVs, even with a 5mile service range. These vehicles are mostly located and used in suburbs where charging
infrastructure is lacking. The lines in this figure are not as smooth as those in Figure 2a
because of the limited number of data points for private vehicles (104 private vehicles versus
11881 taxis). Not surprisingly, the optimal ranges of private vehicles are lower compared to
those of taxis. With a 2-miles service range, approximately 45% of the vehicles requires a
battery range of 20 to 50 miles (Figure 3b).

a)

b)

Figure 3. The distribution of optimal battery sizes for taxis. A) Cumulative distribution with
different charging station service range; b) probability distribution within the 0-250 miles range at
a 2-mile service range (the percentage is calculated based on all vehicles, including those
whose optimal battery range is over 250 miles)

X. Shi et al.

Impact of Battery Range on Adoption and Travel Electrification

For a systems that assumes fixed battery range for everyone, those whose travel patterns
require much smaller battery ranges may not be able to adopt because the cost of the additional
battery range may exceed the fuel cost saving that can be gained through travel electrification.
Overall, individually optimized battery ranges allow higher travel electrification (Figure 4). This
impact is especially significant when the battery unit cost is high. Overall, with a 2-miles service
range, taxis can reach higher level of travel electrification with batteries that are within 250
miles. The major reason for this difference is that taxis focus their activities in the inner city
where the charging infrastructure is more established (Figure 1a). In contrast, private vehicles
tend to be used in the suburbs where the housing price is more affordable and has better traffic
conditions.

a)

b)

Figure 4 The overall travel electrification rate at 2-miles service range using individually
optimized and fixed battery ranges at different unit battery cost: a) taxis; and b) private vehicles

Conclusion
In summary, this paper developed an optimization model to identify battery ranges required to
satisfy 100% of the driving demands at the individual level. The model is applied to a case study
in Beijing using data from both of the private vehicles and taxis. Results from this study indicate
that: 1) over half of the taxis have an optimal battery range within 90 to 180 miles while 45% of
the private vehicles have an optimal battery range within 20 to 50 miles, suggesting that it is
feasible to use existing BEV models to replace gasoline vehicles without sacrificing individual
mobility demand; 2) a charging station service range of 2 miles or more is required to reach
significant BEV penetration and travel electrification, showing that the current designed service
range (5 km) may not be sufficient; and 3) the use of fixed battery ranges can underestimate the
adoption rate and the overall travel electrification rate.

References
Bi, Z., Song, L., De Kleine, R., Mi, C. C., & Keoleian, G. A. (2015). Plug-in vs. wireless
charging: Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions for an electric bus system. Applied
Energy, 146, 11-19. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.02.031
Cai, H., Jia, X., Chiu, A. S. F., Hu, X., & Xu, M. (2014). Siting public electric vehicle
charging stations in Beijing using big-data informed travel patterns of the taxi fleet.
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 33, 39-46. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2014.09.003

X. Shi et al.

Cai, H., & Xu, M. (2013). Greenhouse Gas Implications of Fleet Electrification Based on
Big Data-Informed Individual Travel Patterns. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(16),
9035-9043. doi: 10.1021/es401008f
Carlson, R., Lohse-Busch, H., Duoba, M., & Shidore, N. (2009). Drive Cycle Fuel
Consumption Variability of Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles Due to Aggressive Driving. SAE
Technical Paper, 2009-01-1335. doi: 10.4271/2009-01-1335
DOE, U. S. (2013). New Plug-in Hybrids. from
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/phevsbs.shtml
Elgowainy, A., Han, J., Poch, L., Wang, M., Vyas, A. V., Mahalik, M., & Rousseau, A.
(2010). Well-To-Wheels Analysis OF Energy Use Aand Greenhouse Gas Emissions Of Plug-In
Hybrid Electric Vehicles (E. S. Division, Trans.).
Graver, B. M., Frey, H. C., & Choi, H.-W. (2011). In-Use Measurement of Activity,
Energy Use, and Emissions of a Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle. Environmental Science &
Technology, 45(20), 9044-9051. doi: 10.1021/es201165d
Hawkins, T., Gausen, O., & Strmman, A. (2012). Environmental impacts of hybrid and
electric vehiclesa review. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 17(8), 9971014. doi: 10.1007/s11367-012-0440-9
IEA. (2013). Global EV Outlook: Understanding the Electric Vehicle Lansdscape to
2020. Retrieved from
http://www.iea.org/topics/transport/electricvehiclesinitiative/EVI_GEO_2013_FullReport.PDF
Kelly, J. C., MacDonald, J. S., & Keoleian, G. A. (2012). Time-dependent plug-in hybrid
electric vehicle charging based on national driving patterns and demographics. Applied Energy,
94, 395-405. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.02.001
MacPherson, N. D., Keoleian, G. A., & Kelly, J. C. (2012). Fuel Economy and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Labeling for Plug-In Hybrid Vehicles from a Life Cycle Perspective.
Journal of Industrial Ecology, 16(5), 761-773. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00526.x
Marshall, B. M., Kelly, J. C., Lee, T.-K., Keoleian, G. A., & Filipi, Z. (2013).
Environmental assessment of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles using naturalistic drive cycles and
vehicle travel patterns: A Michigan case study. Energy Policy, 58(0), 358-370. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.037
Raykin, L., MacLean, H. L., & Roorda, M. J. (2012). Implications of Driving Patterns on
Well-to-Wheel Performance of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles. Environmental Science &
Technology, 46(11), 6363-6370. doi: 10.1021/es203981a
Shahraki, N., Cai, H., Turkay, M., & Xu, M. (2015). Optimal locations of electric public
charging stations using real world vehicle travel patterns. Transportation Research Part D:
Transport and Environment, 41, 165-176. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.09.011
Shen, W., & Han, W. (2013). Well-to-Wheel Analyses for Energy Consumption and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Electric Vehicles Using Various Thermal Power Generation
Technologies in China Proceedings of the FISITA 2012 World Automotive Congress (Vol. 191,
pp. 101-115): Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
State Grid Corporation of China. (2010). Technical specification for electric vehicle
charging spot (in Chinese) (Vol. Q/GDW 485-2010).
Stephan, C. H., & Sullivan, J. (2008). Environmental and Energy Implications of Plug-In
Hybrid-Electric Vehicles. Environmental Science & Technology, 42(4), 1185-1190. doi:
10.1021/es062314d
Wang, D., Zamel, N., Jiao, K., Zhou, Y., Yu, S., Du, Q., & Yin, Y. (2013). Life cycle
analysis of internal combustion engine, electric and fuel cell vehicles for China. Energy, 59(0),
402-412. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.07.035

X. Shi et al.

Wang, H., Zhang, X., & Ouyang, M. Energy consumption of electric vehicles based on
real-world driving patterns: A case study of Beijing. Applied Energy. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.05.057
Weber, C. L., & Matthews, H. S. (2008). Food-Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts
of Food Choices in the United States. Environmental Science & Technology, 42(10), 3508-3513.
doi: 10.1021/es702969f