1、NOVEMBER 2022MOBILITY ANDTRANSPORTCONNECTIVITY SERIESCecilia Briceno-Garmendia,Wenxin Qiao,and Vivien FosterThe Economics ofElectric Vehicles forPassenger Transportation 2022 The World Bank1818 H Street NW,Washington DC 20433Telephone:202-473-1000;Internet:www.worldbank.orgSome rights reservedThis w

2、ork is a product of the staff of The World Bank.The findings,interpretations,and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of The World Bank or the governments they represent.The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included

3、in this work.The boundaries,colors,denominations,and other information shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.Rights and PermissionsThe material in this wor

4、k is subject to copyright.Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge,this work may be reproduced,in whole or in part,for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given.AttributionPlease cite the work as follows:“Briceno-Garmendia,Cecilia M.,Wenxin Qiao

5、,and Vivien Foster.2022.The Economics of Electric Vehicles for Passenger Transportation.Mobility and Transport Connectivity Series.World Bank.”All queries on rights and licenses,including subsidiary rights,should be addressed to World Bank Publications,The World Bank Group,1818 H Street NW,Washingto

6、n,DC 20433,USA;fax:202-522-2625;e-mail:pubrightsworldbank.org.Photo credits:(cover)Anastasia Sotchenko/S.Used with the permission of Anastasia Sotchenko/S.Further permission required for reuse.(page 1)IndianFaces/S.Used with the permission of IndianFaces/S.Further permission required for reuse.(page

7、 25)Lina Mo/S.Used with the permission of Lina Mo/S.Further permission required for reuse.(page 81)WESTOCK PRODUCTIONS/S.Used with the permission of WESTOCK PRODUCTIONS/S.Further permission required for reuse.(page 115)F-Stop boy/S.Used with the permission of F-Stop boy/S.Further permission required

8、 for reuse.iContentsContentsFOREWORD.iiiACKNOWLEDGEMENT.vABBREVIATIONS.viiKEY MESSAGES AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS.ixCHAPTER 1:Why Is Electric Mobility a Development Issue?.1Rapid Motorization,Environmental Concerns and Technological Change Drive the Electric Mobility Transition.3The Electric Mobilit

9、y Transition Will Have Environmental,Economic,and Social Impacts.7Environmental Impacts.7Economic Impacts.8Social Impacts.15A Sustainable Transport System Requires More Than Electrifying Vehicles.17References.20CHAPTER 2:THE ECONOMICS OF ELECTRIC MOBILITY.26Evaluating Electric Mobility at the Countr

10、y Scale.28Comparing Vehicle Fleet Capital Costs.29Comparing Vehicle Fleet Operating Costs.35Comparing Infrastructure Costs.40Comparing Externality Costs.43Aggregating Across Cost Categories.48Exploring Sensitivity of Results.58Green Grid Scenario.58Scarce Minerals Scenario.60Efficient Bus Scenario.6

11、1Taxi Fleet Scenario.65Fuel Efficiency Scenario.67Considering Financial Implications.67Assessing Investment Needs.67Assessing Fiscal Implications.70Assessing Affordability.73Assessing Prospects for Carbon Finance.74iiContentsGeneralizing the Typology.78Implications and Conclusions.78References.80CHA

12、PTER 3:TRANSPORT POLICIES TO PROMOTE THE ADOPTION OF ELECTRIC PASSENGER VEHICLES.81The Case for EV Policies.83Assessing EV Policies.85Supply Incentives.86Direct Demand Incentives.91Indirect Demand Incentives.95Charging and Power Infrastructure.95Public,Shared,and Fleet Operations.99Procurement Pract

13、ices and Demand Consolidation Mechanisms.100Vehicle Disposal Regulations.101Energy Pricing.102Policy Priorities for Low-and Middle-Income Countries.104Avoid Vehicle Subsidization Policies with High Fiscal Costs.105Target Industrial Policy Measures Towards Low-Cost Vehicles.105Use Public and Shared T

14、ransport as an Entry Point.106Promote Two-and Three-Wheeler Transport.107Focus on Sustainable Mobility Rather Than Specific Technologies.108Prioritize Policies with General Purpose Benefits.110References.111CHAPTER 4:ENERGY POLICIES TO SUPPORT THE TRANSITION TO ELECTRIC MOBILITY.115Electric Mobility

15、 Poses Challenges for Power Systems.118EV Adoption Will Boost Demand for Electricity.118Electric Vehicles Will Significantly Redistribute Power Load.122Electric Mobility May Also Exacerbate Financial Stress on Power Utilities.126Power System Impacts of Electric Mobility Need to be Carefully Managed.

16、127Some Degree of Power System Reinforcement May Be Needed.128Managing Charging Behavior Will Reduce Investment Needs.130Pricing Reform Is a Critical Aspect of Demand Management.134Conclusion.135References.136APPENDIX.140iiiForewordForewordElectric mobility is gaining momentum,especially in Europe,C

17、hina,and the United States,which account for more than 90 percent of the worlds electric vehicle(EV)fleet.But this report,The Economics of Electric Vehicles for Passenger Transportation,shows that electric vehicles could be increasingly relevant for low-and middle-income countries(LMICs).While many

18、advanced countries see electric mobility primarily as a way to decarbonize the transport sector,the rationale for electric mobility adoption in LMICs is much wider.It brings the potential to reduce local air pollution,improve the quality of public transportation,provide last-mile connectivity,reduce

19、 dependency on imported fuels,and provide new opportunities to participate in vehicle supply chains.Yet,electric mobility adoption does not address all malaises of transport and development such as road safety,congestion,land management,or urban planning.Therefore,electric mobility adoption must be

20、part of a comprehensive program to promote sustainable and inclusive urban mobility.Electric vehicles(EVs)will eventually come to dominate the passenger transport systems of all countries,but the timing of this transition will be determined by the economic and financial realities of each case.For so

21、me countries,it already makes economic sense to pursue electric mobility,even though EVs can cost 70 percent more than conventional vehicles.That is because the operating benefits EVs bring to the table such as lower maintenance and fuel costs often offset the higher capital cost,making them a feasi

22、ble option in the medium-term.Factoring in the broader health and environmental benefits makes the economic case even stronger.Regardless of how a country generates electricity,EVs emit less carbon per vehicle-kilometer compared to conventional vehicles.These reductions only become more pronounced a

23、s the power sector decarbonizes.For LMICs with serious urban air pollution problems,the value of local environmental benefits associated with electric mobility adoption even exceeds that of global climate benefits.After performing an analysis based on these criteria,this report finds that,in half of

24、 the countries studied,global policy targets aiming for 30 percent of new passenger vehicles to be electric by 2030 makes economic sense for many LMICs.Efforts to accelerate an electric mobility transition should target the most viable market segments.The case for electric two-wheelers and three-whe

25、elers is particularly strong in almost every country studied,in view of their relatively low capital cost.The case for electric buses is expected to strengthen as technology evolves and countries adopt efficient procurement and management practices.As of now,for more than half of LMICs ivForewordstu

26、died,the electrification of buses is an attractive proposition,when externality benefits are included and when vehicles are deployed on busy,high-volume routes.Once a country decides that accelerating electric mobility uptake makes sense,there are several ways governments can be proactive.Accelerati

27、ng adoption requires coordination across sectors and a combination of strategic,transport,energy and financial policies.The evaluation of the timing and chief motivations should guide the policy design Nonmonetary incentives such as promoting leasing and consumer financing all show promise and are c

28、ost-effective.But also governments need to invest in robust charging infrastructure,which can be up to six times more effective at encouraging EV purchases than subsidies.Thus,the ultimate success of electric mobility adoption involves additional public investment,and in some countries,it also means

29、 reductions in fiscal revenues due to the foregone oil taxes.Governments may need to plan to anticipate the fiscal implications.And while most of the pieces of puzzle could seem to be in place,ultimately making the proposal attractive for users is essential.That might demand setting in place financi

30、al and procurement schemes such as pooling demand and transferring power and benefits to buyer rather than to providers or by creating financing mechanisms to reduce the risk of new buyer and spread higher capital costs.Electric mobility is an agenda of increasing relevance to LMICs although each on

31、e will need to find its own way.Like many transitions,while the trajectory is uncertain the ultimate destination is clear.Nicolas Peltier-Thiberge,Binyam RejaGlobal Director for Transport Global Practice,Practice Manager for Transport Global Practice,World Bank World BankvAcknowledgementAcknowledgem

32、entThis report has been prepared by a core team led by Cecilia M.Briceno-Garmendia(Global Lead Economist)and Wenxin Qiao(Senior Transport Specialist)of the World Banks Transport Practice,with major contributions from Vivien Foster(Chief Economist of the Infrastructure Practice)and under the overall

33、guidance of Nicolas Peltier-Thiberge(Global Director of Transport Global Practice)and Binyam Reja(Practice Manager of Transport Global Practice).Other contributing members of the team include:Muneeza Mehmood Alam,Fang Zhang,Kristin Panier,Nino Pkhikidze,Annika Berlin,Helena Goetsch,Jevgenijs Steinbu

34、ks and Yoomin Lee.The report also benefited from a fruitful collaboration with the World Bank Energy Sector Management Assistance Program(ESMAP)and the Energy Global Practice,including contributions on Energy and Transport nexus from Ivan Jaques,Yanchao Li,Tarek Keskes,Henrik Rytter Jensen,and Adam

35、Krzysztof Suski.This Report has been partially funded by the ESMAP in close collaboration with Gabriela Elizondo Azuela.A diverse group of consultants and consulting firms contributed to the report.Special acknowledgement goes to senior consultants Uwe Deichmann and Shanjiang Zhu for their key contr

36、ibutions to the report and model.The team also appreciates contributions from Cambridge Econometrics(Led by Stijn Van Hummelen,Jamie Pirie,and Jon Stenning)and Wood PLC(led by Bipin Muley and Moshiuzzaman Mahmud),and the valuable inputs from Chenfeng Xiong,Sadanand Vishwanath Wachche,Gustavo Collant

37、es,Adyasha Mohanty,Jernimo Callejas,Joshua Linn,Danhui Tian,Huijing Deng,Tali Trigg,Nicolas Oxenford,Jijun Wang,Nathalie Del Valle Barboza Rojas,Vidula Damle,Elizabeth Font,and the World Resource Institute(led by Ryan Sclar,Pawan Mulukutla and Krithi Venkat),at various stages of the research.The tea

38、m thanks peer reviewers Bianca Alves,Franck Taillandier,Gerald Olivier,John Gregory Graham,Pierre Audinet,and Yang Chen for their excellent critiques and suggestions to improve quality of both the report and the model;as well as comments received by participants of technical workshops,and the qualit

39、y enhancement review and decision meetings.The team benefited from additional comments from Ani Balabanyan and her team led by Tom Remy from the Energy Global Practice.Special heartfelt thanks to the World Bank transport teams from Brazil,Cambodia,Egypt,Ethiopia,Ghana,India,Jamaica,Jordan,Kazakhstan

40、,Maldives,Nepal,Nigeria,Poland,Rwanda,Tajikistan,Turkey,Ukraine,Uruguay,Vanuatu and Vietnam,for their help in providing some data,sharing country specific documents and fact checking the case studies included in the analysis.Similarly,our thanks go to the World Bank Transport Global Unit colleagues

41、for their continuous feedback and permanent encouragement,and to the team of the Infrastructure Chief Economist office for their valuable input.viAcknowledgementWe appreciate the World Bank Carbon Price Assessment Tool(CPAT)team Stephen John Stretton,Stephane Hallegatte,Alexandra Andrea Maite Campma

42、s,Daniel Esteban Bastidas Cordova,Paulina Estela Schulz Antipa and Dirk Heine for allowing access to key data.The team has been lucky to count with the support of our communication and knowledge management teams including Erin Scronce,Xavier Bernard Leon Muller,Jonathan Davidar,Sara Sultan,and Lesze

43、k Tymoteusz Zemke.The team is deeply grateful to Riccardo Puliti(Vice President,Infrastructure,World Bank)and Pablo Fajnzylber(Director of Strategy and Operations,Infrastructure,World Bank)for their excellent leadership and invaluable guidance;and also extends its gratitude to Makhtar Diop(IFC Manag

44、ing Director and Executive Vice President),Guangzhe Chen(World Bank Regional Director,Infrastructure,South Asia)and Franz R.Drees-Gross(World Bank Regional Director,Infrastructure,West Africa)for supporting our initial ideas and launching the underlying research project.viiAbbreviationsAbbreviations

45、2W/3W two-wheeler/three-wheelerBaaS battery as a serviceBAU business as usualBEV battery electric vehicleCAFC corporate average fuel consumptionDSO distribution systems operatorEPM Electricity Planning ModelEV electric vehiclesFAME Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of Hybrid and Electric VehiclesGC

46、grand challengeGCC Gross Cost ContractingGDP gross domestic productGJgigajouleGNI gross national incomeHEV hybrid electric vehicleHOV high occupancy vehicleIBT increasing block tariffsICCT International Council on Clean TransportationICE internal combustion engineICEV internal combustion engine vehi

47、cleIEA International Energy AgencyIMF International Monetary FundIRENA International Renewable Energy AgencyLMIC low-and middle-income countriesNREL National Renewable Energy LaboratoryOECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and DevelopmentPHEV plug-in hybrid electric vehiclesPM Particulate Matt

48、erPPP Purchasing Power ParityPVphotovoltaicSDS Sustainable Development ScenarioSIDS Small island developing statesviiiAbbreviationsTCO total cost of ownershipTOU time of useTTW tank-to-wheelUNEP United Nation Environment ProgramWTT well-to-tankNote:All dollars are in U.S.currency unless otherwise sp

49、ecified.ixKey Messages and Policy RecommendationsKey Messages and Policy RecommendationsElectric mobility has garnered growing interest and significant momentum across several major global marketsoften motivated by transport sector decarbonization.Together,Europe,China,and the United States account

50、for more than 90 percent of the worlds electric vehicle fleet.For many OECD countries,electric mobility is seen primarily as a lever for transport sector decarbonization,given that many of the other relevant policy options have already been exhausted.This report finds that electric mobility is also

51、increasingly relevant for low-and middle-income countries.As of today,electric mobility for passengers is a comparative rarity across low-and middle-income countries(LMICs).In some of the LMIC leading markets,such as Brazil,India,and Indonesia,electric vehicles account for less than 0.5 percent of t

52、otal sales.There are signs that this situation is changing.India,Chile,and Brazil are leading the way in electrifying their bus fleets in their largest cities by introducing innovative financing practices and improved procurement practices.Battery swapping schemes are taking off in Asian and East Af

53、rican countries to lower the upfront cost of two-and three-wheelers.Original modeling for this report suggests that established global policy targets,such as 30 percent of new passenger vehicles to be electric by 2030,would make economic sense for many LMICs under a wide range of possible scenarios.

54、The potential benefits of electric mobility for low-and middle-income countries go well beyond those associated with decarbonization.Electric mobility for passengers in LMICs not only can certainly bring significant decarbonization benefits,but also has the potential to contribute to several other i

55、mportant development agendasnotably inclusive mobility,local air quality,energy security,and industrial policy.Promoting inclusive mobility.Life-cycle costs for some types of electric vehicles are becoming lower than those associated with conventional alternatives.Moreover,the proliferation of cost-

56、effective two-wheel and three-wheel electric vehicles may bring transportation within reach of lower income populations.Electric two-and three-wheelers are already popular in many low-income markets for transporting people and goods.In rural areas,low-cost electric motorbikes,in combination with sol

57、ar photovoltaic systems,reduce dependence on expensive or hard-to-obtain gasoline,facilitate access to markets and other opportunities,and help solve the first or last mile problem when using public transit.As electric vehicles move toward capital cost parity with their conventional counterparts,suc

58、h benefits will be further accentuated.xKey Messages and Policy Recommendations Improving local air quality.Deteriorating local air quality is a serious health issue in many large cities across the developing world,and is responsible for 7 million fatalities globally each year.Switching to electric

59、passenger vehicles reduces emissions of the most harmful particulate matter by as much as a factor of 10 per passenger kilometer traveled.Not only is electricity sometimes the cleaner fuel,but the fact that it is generated in remote locations also moves remaining pollution away from vehicle tailpipe

60、s in crowded cities.Bolstering energy security.Many countries rely on imported oil products to power traditional petrol and diesel-based vehicles.Fuel imports can absorb a significant amount of foreign exchange and often leave balance of payments vulnerable to oil price shocks.To the extent that cou

61、ntries generate electricity from renewable energy,or even other indigenous fossil fuels,introducing electric mobility can bring significant benefits in terms of enhanced energy security and associated macroeconomic resilience.For example,countries such as Ethiopia and Nepal,which import fuels but ca

62、n generate electricity almost entirely from indigenous hydropower,could significantly reduce their reliance on oil by switching to electric mobility.Democratizing manufacture.The manufacture of motor vehicles based on internal combustion engines is relatively complex,and hence not widespread,with ju

63、st five countries accounting for 60 percent of global production.Although the manufacture of batteries for electric vehicles also remains highly concentrated globally,the greater simplicity of electric vehicles themselves,as well as the considerable commoditization of many key components,suggests th

64、e possibility of much greater scope for domestic production(or at least assembly)in many LMICs.An early indication is the innovative start-ups emerging in Kenya,Uganda and Rwanda,providing affordable alternatives for electric two-wheelers and already exploring lower cost options for electric buses a

65、nd trucks.However,the transition to electric mobility raises many complex choices and policy questions,many of which have never been considered from an LMIC perspective.Much of the policy literature on electric mobility takes the perspective of higher-income countries.However,the transport policy co

66、ntext in LMICs differs sharply from that in HICs in light of the disparities in age,performance,and composition of the baseline vehicle fleet.For the first time,this report undertakes a detailed analysis of the adoption of electric passenger mobility across a broad cross-section of 20 LMICs,as well

67、providing a wide-ranging review of emerging country experiences.This overview briefly answers some of the most pertinent policy questions and draws out the main policy recommendations.More comprehensive analysis is provided within the report,while the associated Electric Mobility Scoping Tool can be

68、 adapted and applied to any country to gain deeper customized insights into the most appropriate policy trajectory in each case.xiKey Messages and Policy RecommendationsAddressing QuestionsPolicymakers are asking many questions about the relevance of electric mobility.Using the original research for

69、 this report,it is possible to clear up several common misconceptions about the case for electric mobility and to shed light on the many related questions that arise.Question 1:Is the higher capital cost of electric vehicles compensated by lower life-cycle costs?Capital cost premiums associated with

70、 electric vehicles are substantial,but declining.Electric passenger vehicles are significantly more expensive to purchase than conventional internal combustion engine vehicles.The magnitude of the capital cost premium varies according to the type of electric vehicle.As of the early 2020s,the largest

71、 premiums of around 80 percent are associated with four-wheel and two-wheel electric vehicles,and slightly lower premiums of around 60 percent with electric buses(figure 1).Some 30 percent of the cost of purchasing an electric vehicle is associated with the battery.Given rapid technological progress

72、,the cost of batteries has been falling on average at 7 percent per annum.As a result,FIGURE 1.Vehicle Capital Mark-up of BEV over ICE(%)Source:World Bank,Electric Mobility Scoping Tool,2022.Note:BEV=battery electric vehicle;ICE=internal combustion engine(vehicle).2502001501005004W-20204W-20302W-202

73、02W-2030Bus-2020Bus-203050100 xiiKey Messages and Policy Recommendationsthe cost premiums associated with electric vehicles are expected to fall to the 25 to 40 percent range by 2030(figure 1),and will eventually reach cost.Nevertheless,uncertainties continue to surround the evolution of battery pri

74、ces,which are closely linked to the availability and price of the rare earth minerals(such as lithium)used for their manufacture.Charging infrastructure is another significant capital cost associated with the adoption of electric passenger vehicles.Although electric two-wheelers can largely be charg

75、ed from regular power sockets,other types of electric vehicles require more specialized charging infrastructure.This includes both private charging points,at home or at work,as well as public facilities to ensure that electric vehicles can recharge while roaming.The associated investments are larges

76、t in the case of electric buses,which require more significant charging infrastructure given their greater power needs.Overall,investments in charging infrastructure typically amount,on average,to some US$2,500 on average per four-wheel vehicle and US$25,000 per electric bus.Once purchased,electric

77、vehicles are significantly cheaper to operate given their simpler and more efficient motors.Because much less can go wrong with an electric vehicle than with a fuel-based vehicle,maintenance is more straightforward,amounting to a typical saving of US$5,000 over the life cycle of a typical four-wheel

78、 vehicle.Electric vehicles are also less costly to run because they are much more energy efficient than their conventional counterparts(see question 3),amounting to a typical saving of around US$10,000 in the economic cost of energy over the life cycle of a typical four-wheel vehicle.Such underlying

79、 economic advantage is further accentuated by the fact that many LMICs tax petrol while subsidizing electricity,generating even larger financial savings for electric vehicle owners(see question 7).In addition,the ongoing externality benefits resulting from reduced emissions of carbon and various loc

80、al air pollutants can sometimes be the deciding factor for electric mobility.These bring an estimated economic value of approximately US$5,000 over the lifetime of a vehicle(see questions 3 and 4).For a significant number of countries,electric mobility is attractive solely for the lower operating co

81、sts,even without taking externality benefits into account.However,the number of countries for which electric mobility looks economically attractive increases significantly when externality benefits are included.Question 2:Can consumers afford the capital cost differential associated with electric ve

82、hicles?Until electric vehicles reach capital cost parity,higher purchase costs will be a significant barrier to uptake.In many countries,the capital cost premiums for private two-wheel and four-wheel vehicles do not represent much more than 10 percent of gross national income(GNI)per capita,suggesti

83、ng that they might The Economics of Electric Vehicles for Passenger TransportationxiiiKey Messages and Policy Recommendationspotentially be affordable with some consumer financing.In a significant number of countries,however,the capital cost premium of electric four-wheelers is prohibitively largera

84、nging from 20 to 100 percent of GNI per capita which is potentially an insurmountable barrier for many consumers.Many OECD countries have tried to offset higher capital costs with vehicle purchase subsidies,but financing mechanisms are likely to be a better solution in the developing world.Subsidies

85、 for the purchase of electric vehicles,mainly four-wheel,are widespread in many market-leading countries.These subsidies have proved to be very costly,about US$12,000 per induced vehicle purchase.Moreover,such subsidies are likely highly regressive,given that four-wheel electric vehicles are expensi

86、ve and have been adopted mainly by higher-income consumers.As a result,such subsidies are unlikely to be a good use of public funds in LMICs,particularly because those higher capital costs often pay for themselves over time as consumers enjoy lower operating costs.What may prove more cost-effective

87、and scalable for LMICs is to develop financing mechanisms to allow consumers to spread the higher capital costs of electric vehicles over time.These could be consumer credit lines or adoption of vehicle(or battery)leasing models.For instance in India,the government offers a first-loss partial credit

88、 guarantee to financial institutions to unlock commercial financing availability at concessional rates for the purchase of electric two-and three-wheelers.Leasing EVs can be effective in mitigating ownership risks faced by consumers and transferring them to leasing companies,which may be better equi

89、pped to manage them.Battery as a Service(BaaS)is one of the emerging business models in which the purchase of the batterythe costliest component of electric vehiclesis decoupled from the vehicle itself and a combination of battery leasing and swapping reduces the upfront vehicle cost,key barrier to

90、EV adoption for low-income populations.This model has been observed in China,India,Thailand,and increasingly,Africa.Similarly,leasing schemes have been introduced to make the adoption of electric buses more palatable.In Chile,the business model for electric buses separates service provision from fle

91、et ownership,with the utility becoming an asset owner and investor that leases buses to operators.Indeed,the use of Mobility as a Service(MaaS)models in the context of electric vehicles provides a practical way of shifting the burden of higher capital costs to firms with potentially easier access to

92、 credit and having consumers pay gradually per trip or via monthly subscriptions.Question 3:Does it make environmental sense to electrify transportation before the power grid is fully decarbonized?Electric vehicles offer a major energy efficiency advantage,particularly in the context of LMICs with h

93、ighly inefficient fleets of conventional vehicles.Electric motors are much more efficient than internal combustion xivKey Messages and Policy Recommendationsengines,which lose a great deal of energy in the form of heat and noise.This advantage remains,even accounting for significant energy losses in

94、 the generation,transmission,and distribution of electricity.When it comes to LMICs,the efficiency advantage is further accentuated by the low baseline efficiency in the motorized fleet due to the prevalence of older vehicles and the relatively lax fuel efficiency standards.When all these factors ar

95、e accounted for,electric vehicles require only about a quarter to a third of the energy needed by existing internal combustion engine vehicles to move one passenger-kilometer.Given its greater energy efficiency,electric mobility is typically advantageous in carbon terms even before the power grid is

96、 fully decarbonized.Countries vary greatly in terms of the current carbon intensity of their power generation mix.However,due to the much higher level of energy efficiency associated with electric vehicles,electric vehicles are almost always less carbon intensive than their conventional counterparts

97、 per vehicle-kilometer travelled(figure 2).Of course,this advantage only becomes further accentuated as the power sector pursues the necessary decarbonization trajectory over time.For example,countries like Kazakhstan and Poland,which generate electricity primarily from fossil fuels,can increase the

98、 externality benefits of electric mobility by 50 and 90 percent respectively as a result of shifting toward renewable sources of electricity.FIGURE 2.Comparative Carbon Intensity of Petrol and Electricity(kgCO2/vkm)Source:World Bank,Electric Mobility Scoping Tool,2022.0.350.300.250.200.150.100.050.0

99、0Petrol CO2 IntensityElectricity CO2 IntensityNepalUruguayBrazilUkraineRwandaVietnamEgyptJordanTurkeyIndiaPolandKazakhstanMaldivesxvKey Messages and Policy RecommendationsQuestion 4:How important are local environmental benefits in relation to global ones?Electric mobility also carries a huge advant

100、age in the reduction of local air pollutants.Electric vehicles emit just a fraction of the local air pollutantsNOx(nitric oxide),SOx(sulfur oxide),PM10(particulate matter)associated with internal combustion engines per unit of energy consumed.This advantage is further accentuated to around an order

101、of magnitude when the energy efficiency differential is considered.In addition,local air pollutants associated with power generation are typically emitted at relatively remote locations where power plants are situated.The associated human health damage factor is therefore much lower than when the eq

102、uivalent pollution is emitted from a vehicle tailpipe on a congested urban street.For some emerging economies,the environmental benefits associated with reducing local air pollution are even more significant than those associated with mitigating global climate change.The relative importance of local

103、 and global environmental benefits of switching to electric mobility varies considerably across LMICs(figure 3).For countries such as Egypt and Turkey,which still rely significantly on fossil fuels for power generation and face major urban air pollution challenges,the environmental benefits associat

104、ed with electrifying passenger transportation are primarily local in terms of improved urban air quality.FIGURE 3.Environmental Benefits of Switching to Electric Mobility(%on total gains)Source:World Bank,Electric Mobility Scoping Tool,2022.50403020100CO2Local PollutantsEthiopiaCambodiaVa

105、nuatuNepalTajikistanNigeriaRwandaUruguayJamaicaGhanaBrazilVietnamIndiaUkraineJordanPolandMaldivesKazakhstanEgyptTurkeyxviKey Messages and Policy RecommendationsConversely,for countries such as Ethiopia and Nepal,which have exceptionally clean hydropower and less pressing urban air pollution problems

106、,the environmental benefits associated with electrifying passenger transportation are primarily global in terms of reduced carbon emissions.Question 5:Should countries prioritize electrification of certain vehicle categories,and,if so,which?The case for electric vehicle adoption varies significantly

107、 across vehicle categories,with vehicle capital cost and lifetime mileage being critical factors.Passenger transport electrification is evolving in very distinct ways for the two-wheelers,four-wheelers,and buses.As a result,in any given country,electrification may make sense much sooner for some typ

108、es of vehicles than for others,suggesting the importance of a differentiated approach.Broadly speaking,vehicle types with relatively small absolute capital cost differentials and/or relatively high lifetime mileage are likely to be the most attractive.Because the disadvantage of electric vehicles co

109、mes from higher capital costs,it follows that the least expensive vehicles may be among the first to become attractive.Similarly,because the advantage of electric vehicles stems from operating cost savings,it follows that the most intensively used vehicles are those likely to present the most favora

110、ble balance of costs and benefits.Thus,electrification of transport is particularly attractive for two-wheelers,electric buses,and possibly high mileage four-wheel fleets such as taxis and equivalents.In just about every LMIC studied for this report,two-wheelers were advantageous to electrify,in vie

111、w of their relatively low capital cost.Furthermore,for a majority of LMICs studied,the electrification of buses was also an attractive proposition,particularly once externality benefits were included.The case is strongest for electric buses deployed on routes that involve intensive usage of the vehi

112、cle,to allow operating cost savings to accumulate.By contrast,the case for electric four-wheelers was only compelling in a handful of the LMICs studied,albeit slightly better for intensively used commercial fleet or passenger vehicles,such as taxi or ride-sharing services,which may capture higher op

113、erating cost savings.Vehicle fleet compositions vary hugely across low-and middle-income countries,and this needs to inform the adoption strategy.Whereas four-wheel vehicles tend to dominate passenger fleets in many high-income countries,the story can be quite different across the developing world(f

114、igure 4).In many Asian countriessuch as Cambodia,India,Nepal,and Vietnamtwo-wheeled vehicles account for as much as 60 to 80 percent of passenger-kilometers,making their electrification particularly relevant.Across African countriessuch as Ethiopia and Ghanabuses account for some 40 percent,which ag

115、ain may be a good case for electrification.By contrast,in many upper-middle-income countriessuch as Brazil and Turkey four-wheel vehicles account for more than 80 percent of passenger-kilometers traveled,leaving the case for xviiKey Messages and Policy Recommendationselectric mobility not so strong.

116、This underscores the importance of understanding a countrys vehicle fleet composition when designing a vehicle electrification strategy.Question 6:What will the impact of electric mobility be on the electric power system?The overall energy demand associated with adopting electric mobility is not lar

117、ge relative to the scale of the power system in most countries.Electrification of passenger transport will certainly create additional demand for electricity.Yet demand growth is expected to be quite manageable in most cases due to the energy-efficient nature of electric vehicles,and the relatively

118、slow transformation of the vehicle fleet.Across the 20 LMICs studied for this report,the adoption of a 30 percent target for new vehicle electrification by 2030 was found to boost electricity demand by no more than a fraction of 1 percent.Nevertheless,exceptions may arise in some low-income countrie

119、s where power infrastructure is embryonic.Simulations conducted for several countries in the Sahel suggest that modest electrification of the two-wheel fleet could already place pressure on scarce electricity supplies.The time profile of electric vehicle charging could potentially exacerbate peak de

120、mand.More concerning than the aggregate effect on electricity demand is the time profile associated with vehicle charging.FIGURE 4.Prevalence of Types of Vehicles(%of total VKT)Source:World Bank,Electric Mobility Scoping Tool,2022.504030201004Ws2Ws3WsBusesMaldivesNepalVietnamIndiaCambodia

121、EthiopiaRwandaGhanaEgypt,Arab RepVanuatuNigeriaUruguayBrazilJordanTurkeyUkrainePolandKazakhstanJamaicaTajikistanxviiiKey Messages and Policy RecommendationsFor private vehicles at least,charging will quite likely take place at home at the end of the day,carrying the risk of further accentuating the

122、evening demand peak.This is potentially costly to accommodate,given that peak demand for electricityrather than total energy needsis the main driver for power infrastructure investment.Moreover,many power utilities lack the pricing tools to incentivize a shift in charging behavior toward off-peak pe

123、riods,such as the middle of the night.Question 7:How do taxes and subsidies affect incentives for the adoption of electric vehicles?Energy taxes and subsidies materially affect the operating cost savings associated with electric mobility.Many countries either tax energy(because of negative environme

124、ntal externalities)or subsidize energy(because it is a basic need).Moreover,different kinds of energy,notably liquid fuels and electricity,may be treated quite differently from a fiscal perspective.As noted,one of the main advantages of electric vehicles is reduced energy consumption and associated

125、costs.This underlying economic advantage will be distorted by the presence of taxes and subsidies for liquid fuels and electricity.Most LMICs studied tend to heavily tax petrol and diesel while generously subsidizing electricity,to the point of over incentivizing electric vehicle adoption.Typical ta

126、x rates on petrol range run to FIGURE 5.Tax and Subsidy Rates for Petrol and Electricity(%on cost)Source:World Bank,Electric Mobility Scoping Tool,2022.604020020406080PetrolElectricityMaldivesNepalVietnamIndiaCambodiaEthiopiaRwandaGhanaEgyptVanuatuNigeriaUruguayBrazilJordanTurkeyUkrainePo

127、landKazakhstanJamaicaTajikistanxixKey Messages and Policy Recommendationsbetween 40 and 140 percent over cost;subsidies to electricity amount to around 40 percent of the price(figure 5).Such a fiscal regime favors the adoption of electric vehicles by widening the cost differential between liquid tra

128、nsport fuels and electricity.Although pricing petrol and diesel more expensively than electricity may be legitimate,given related larger environmental costs,analysis suggests that the price differential is often larger than what would be warranted economically by the different environmental impact.O

129、f course,a fiscal regime that taxed electricity while subsidizing petrol would have the opposite effect of disincentivizing the adoption of electric vehicles and could represent the situation in some oil-exporting countries that heavily subsidize fossil fuels.The fiscal regime affecting vehicle purc

130、hase also plays a role in shaping incentives for uptake.Whereas many OECD countries have introduced significant subsidies to encourage purchase of electric vehicles,these are a rarity across LMICs.In about half the countries studied,the fiscal treatment of electric vehicles and their conventional co

131、unterparts does not differ.In the other half of the countries,vehicles based on internal combustion engines are penalized with a surcharge of about 20 percentage points above their electric equivalents,based on a combination of taxes and import duties.Nevertheless,fiscal incentiveseven where they ex

132、istare not typically large enough to reverse the capital cost disadvantage of electric vehicles.Question 8:What are the fiscal implications of an accelerated transition to electric mobility?Absent any fiscal reforms,adoption of electric mobility is expected to reduce net fiscal receipts.As noted,int

133、ernal combustion vehicles and associated liquid transport fuels are generally more heavily taxed than electric vehicles and associated electricity usage.The inevitable consequence is that a shift toward electric mobility will decrease tax receipts from conventional transport and increase subsidies t

134、o the electricity sector(figure 6).This could be expected to lead to some overall deterioration in the public finances,particularly for countries that rely on fuel taxes as a significant source of fiscal revenue.The transition might also prejudice the financial sustainability of power utilitiesalrea

135、dy precarious in many LMICsif these are not fully compensated for providing additional electricity to vehicle owners at below-cost recovery rates.In addition to its negative impact on the net fiscal position,the electric mobility transition will also give rise to public expenditure needs(see questio

136、n 9).Question 9:What are the investment needs associated with electric mobility and who bears them?The investment needs associated with the transition to electric mobility are significant.Broadly,two types of investments are needed to support adoption of electric mobility.The first is the incrementa

137、l capital xxKey Messages and Policy Recommendationscost associated with the purchase of electric vehicles,which is currently substantial,but can be expected to decline toward zero over time.The second is the charging infrastructure needed to support the use of electric vehicles,comprising a range of

138、 facilities,from private chargers located in homes and offices to public charging stations on the road,to specialized charging arrangements at bus depots.Despite considerable variation in the magnitude of investment needs across countries,a figure of around 0.25 percent of gross domestic product per

139、 annum is representative.The burden of investment falls mainly on the public sector in some countries and mainly on the private sector in others.The incremental investment cost of personal two-wheel and four-wheel electric vehicles and associated home charging infrastructure will fall on private ind

140、ividuals.Whereas the public sector must bear the additional cost of purchasing electric buses and their associated charging infrastructure,as well as provision of public charging facilities for private users of electric vehicles.The relative size of public and private investments needed varies hugel

141、y across countries(figure 7).In countries where public transport is dominant,the investment burden falls primarily on the public sector.Elsewhere,most of the investment needs to be undertaken by private actors.Understanding these differences is critical in designing a suitable financing strategy.FIG

142、URE 6.Relative Fiscal Impact of Electric Mobility by Tax Stream(%of total impact)Source:World Bank,Electric Mobility Scoping Tool,2022.020406080100Vehicle Taxes and SubsidiesPetrol Taxes and SubsidiesElectricity Taxes and SubsidiesVehicle DutiesDiesel Taxes and SubsidiesMaldivesNepalVietn

143、amIndiaCambodiaEthiopiaRwandaGhanaEgyptVanuatuNigeriaUruguayBrazilJordanTurkeyUkrainePolandKazakhstanJamaicaTajikistanxxiKey Messages and Policy RecommendationsQuestion 10:Could carbon finance play a role in financing the electric mobility transition?Electric mobility can sometimes provide a cost-ef

144、fective way of carbon abatement.In almost half of the countries studied,electric mobility can deliver carbon abatement at negative costmeaning that its adoption is more than justified by the other associated benefits,so that carbon savings essentially come for free.In many other countries,however,ad

145、opting electric mobility would only make economic sense if the price of carbon exceeded US$100 per ton.The relevance of electric mobility as a carbon abatement strategy,then,depends heavily on context.Carbon financing could potentially cover a significant portion of public investment needs.At presen

146、t,there is little or no experience with harnessing carbon finance to support electric mobility.If it were possible to capture such finance at a price of US$40 per ton,however,simulations suggest that the resulting revenues would be enough to cover a substantial percentage(around a quarter)of the ass

147、ociated incremental FIGURE 7.Additional Investment Needs by Public and Private Shares(%on total needs)Source:World Bank,Electric Mobility Scoping Tool,2022.02040Private Capital 4W Public Capital Bus Private Capital 2/3WPrivate ChargingPublic for Private Charging Public Bus ChargingMaldive

148、sNepalVietnamIndiaCambodiaEthiopiaRwandaGhanaEgyptVanuatuNigeriaUruguayBrazilJordanTurkeyUkrainePolandKazakhstanJamaicaTajikistanxxiiKey Messages and Policy Recommendationsgovernment investment needs in electric buses and public charging infrastructure.The same cannot be said for private investment

149、in four-wheel vehicles,where carbon finance is not able to contribute a material share of the incremental investment.RecommendationsSeveral useful policy recommendations flow from the answers to the questions posed.These fall into several categories:strategic context(recommendations 14),pertinent to

150、 the transport sector(recommendations 59),pertinent to the energy sector(recommendations 1013),and related to financing(recommendations 1416).Strategic RecommendationsRecommendation 1:Identify the primary motivation for pursuing electric mobility.As noted at the outset,reasons for pursuing electric

151、mobility are numerous,particularly in LMICs.These include promoting inclusive mobility,improving local air quality,reducing carbon emissions,bolstering energy security,and democratizing manufacture of vehicles.In any given country,one or more of these objectives may weigh more heavily than others.Co

152、untries need to articulate why they are adopting electric mobility because doing so will help to guide and inform their strategic approach.For example,a country motivated by industrial policy may need to press ahead sooner than otherwise to gain a first mover advantage in manufacture,whereas a count

153、ry motivated by decarbonization need only advance once the associated implicit carbon price drops below a certain level.Recommendation 2:Position electric mobility within an integrated national strategy for sustainable mobility.Even when decarbonization is an important reason for pursuing electric m

154、obility,countries need to recognize that electric mobility is just one of several approaches to decarbonizing the sector and of a wider national strategy for sustainable mobility.Transport decarbonization will generally require a combination of measures to avoid emissions through demand management,t

155、o shift traffic to less carbon-intensive transport modalities such as public transportation and railways,and to improve the carbon footprint of all transportation modes.Electric mobility is just one way to improve the sectors carbon footprint and may not necessarily be the most cost-effective one.It

156、 will need to be considered alongside other improve measures,such as motorization management to improve the overall fuel efficiency of the conventional fleet,as well as combined with other measures designed to avoid and shift emissions.Recommendation 3:Evaluate the case for and timing of electric mo

157、bility at the country level.A strong conclusion from this study is that the economics of electric mobility for passenger transport depend on context.xxiiiKey Messages and Policy RecommendationsThe balance of benefits and costs varies substantially across countries in line with their characteristics.

158、For example,in general,the case looks to be stronger in countries that are net oil importers,enjoy relatively low-cost purchase of vehicles,and have vehicle fleets that are not dominated by four-wheelers.Furthermore,the case for electric mobility is generally improving over time,due to technological

159、 change,and the moment when it starts to make economic sense will differ from one country to another.The Electric Mobility Scoping Tool developed for this report provides an agile and practical way of conducting a first-order assessment at the country level.More detailed analysis for the 20 countrie

160、s covered in the report is provided in the Country-at-a-Glance appendix.Recommendation 4:Establish mechanisms for institutional coordination.The transition to electric mobility is complex,calling for coordination across a wide range of institutions,which may not necessarily have any history of close

161、 collaboration.For a start,both transport and electricity sectors need to work closely together to ensure that power infrastructure is increasingly aligned with transportation demands.Further,although electric mobility may be a national policy objective,much of the implementation will need to take p

162、lace at the city level.For instance,an urban municipalitys decision to electrify transport may prejudice national revenues from gasoline tax,while a national decision to accelerate electric mobility may impose significant investment needs at the local level.Transport Sector RecommendationsRecommenda

163、tion 5:Target adoption of electric mobility toward most promising vehicle segments.Countries should avoid blanket approaches to electric mobility and consider instead the electrification of each vehicle segment individually because the strength of the case may vary substantially.Two-wheelers(with th

164、eir relatively low capital costs and negligible charging infrastructure requirements)are typically the first vehicle category for which electric mobility becomes attractive,followed by buses and lastly four-wheelers.Taking this into account,countries may wish to sequence transport electrification ef

165、forts accordingly.Further,because the benefits of electric mobility stem from operating cost savings,the crucial issue is mileage.The higher the vehicle mileage,the sooner electric mobility is likely to become attractive.This points to a case for prioritizing,within each vehicle segment,those sectio

166、ns of the fleet associated with the most intensive usage.For instance,taxis,ride-sharing vehicles,and other commercial four-wheel fleets may become suitable for electrification before less-intensively used private family cars.Recommendation 6:Prioritize use of public funds for subsidization of charg

167、ing infrastructure.The expansion of electric mobility is subject to a coordination,chicken-and-egg type of problem:demand for electric vehicles depends on the availability of charging infrastructure,and the case for building charging infrastructure depends on demand for electric mobility.Breaking ou

168、t of this vicious circle is therefore a priority area for public intervention.Clear economic evidence indicates that subsidizing construction of public charging stations is a xxivKey Messages and Policy Recommendationsfar more cost-effective approach to encouraging the uptake of electric vehicles th

169、an subsidizing the purchase of those vehicles directly.Indeed,the subsidy cost per additional electric vehicle sale induced is just US$4,000 for charging stations,versus US$12,000 for vehicle purchase incentives.Recommendation 7:Facilitate battery swapping models.A simple way of keeping down the cos

170、t of electric vehicles and the associated battery charging activities is to swap fully batteries in and out of vehicles,exchanging flat batteries for fully charged ones.Associated business models are already springing up across Africa and Asia,but the scale-up of this promising approach calls for fu

171、rther regulatory standardization to ensure widespread compatibility between types of batteries and electric vehicles.Recommendation 8:Facilitate recycling of batteries for electric vehicles.The most critical bottleneck for the development of electric vehicles is batteries.Batteries not only remain r

172、elatively costly to produce,but also are subject to a high degree of market concentration and hostage to bottlenecks in the supply chain of the rare earth minerals(such as lithium)from which they are made.As the stock of electric vehicle batteries in circulation starts to expand,it will become incre

173、asingly feasible to recycle batteries extracting further value from their mineral content.However,this depends on a suitable policy environment being in place to facilitate recycling through the establishment of regulatory standards and procedures at the national and international level,as well as a

174、ssociated manufacturing facilities jointly set in place with regulations that extend producer responsibility to battery recycling.Recommendation 9:Adopt demand pooling mechanisms to reduce procurement cost of buses.Similar challenges arise for public transit authorities,which may struggle to afford

175、the capital cost premium associated with electric buses.In these cases,experience shows that the aggregation of demand across multiple urban jurisdictions to form larger procurement lots can be an effective way of reducing the unit cost of purchasing electric buses.India,for example,has achieved cos

176、t reductions of up to 30 percent.This may involve national-level coordination of electric bus procurement across cities,or in smaller countries even supranational coordination,potentially facilitated by regional or multilateral institutions.Energy Sector RecommendationsRecommendation 10:Integrate de

177、mand for electric mobility into power sector planning.As electric mobility becomes increasingly widespread,its implications for the power sector will become more material.Given the long lead times involved in power sector investments,it is important to start integrating projected transportation dema

178、nd into the planning process along the entire electricity supply chain,starting with generation,moving on to transmission,and focusing on local distribution,where hotspots and bottlenecks are likely to arise.This should provide a clearer sense of the cost implications of electrifying transport for t

179、he power sector.xxvKey Messages and Policy RecommendationsRecommendation 11:Adopt electricity demand management measures to shift charging demand away from peak periods.The cost implications of electrifying transport for the power sector depend on charging behavior and the extent to which it is conc

180、entrated in existing system peak periods,which highlights the importance of adopting measures to manage electricity demand,with a view to shifting the timing of vehicle charging.The many ways of doing so include simple measures such as providing consumers with information to encourage more efficient

181、 behavior and introducing battery swapping arrangements to spread charging activity over time(recommendation 8).Ultimately,smart charging infrastructure that allows the grid operator to influence when vehicles charge(V1G),and potentially even integrate vehicle batteries as energy storage resources a

182、t the system level(V2G)can resolve this issuethough not without significant investment.In the meantime,one of the most powerful demand management tools available is energy pricing(see recommendation 12).Recommendation 12:Reform electricity tariff structures to provide incentives for more efficient c

183、harging behavior.Electricity tariff structures can be complex and across the developing world are dominated by time-invariant rising block tariff structures.Such schemes can penalize electric vehicle ownership by pushing charging into higher-priced consumption bands.At the same time,they do nothing

184、to encourage vehicle owners to charge during off-peak periods.Greater reliance on time-of-use pricing,where flat linear tariffs vary by time of day,would be better suited to systems where electric vehicles make up a growing portion of demand.However,implementing such pricing schemes calls for signif

185、icant investments in smarter metering infrastructure.Recommendation 13:Reform energy prices to ensure suitable incentives for electric vehicle adoption.The absolute level of electricity prices relative to that of liquid transport fuels will have an important impact on the incentive for electric vehi

186、cle adoption in the first place.As noted,taxing petrol and diesel while subsidizing electricity may over incentivize electric vehicle adoption,and vice versa.Ideally,the relative prices of transportation and electricity should reflect the relative burden of environmental pollution associated with ea

187、ch of them.Finance RecommendationsRecommendation 14:Support creation of financing mechanisms to spread higher capital costs.Capital cost premiums for electric vehicles may persist into the medium term,making them difficult for private consumers to afford.This would be especially true for the low-inc

188、ome consumers who might otherwise benefit from electric two-wheelers.Rather than introduce relatively costly and potentially regressive subsidies for the purchase of electric vehicles,LMICs would be better advised to support creating financing mechanisms so that the higher capital costs can be sprea

189、d over time.This could be done several ways,from providing credit lines on relatively soft terms to introducing leasing arrangements for vehicles and/or batteries,to adopting innovative(ESCO-type)models where an intermediary bears the cost of vehicle purchase in return for a share in the operating c

190、ost savings.xxviKey Messages and Policy RecommendationsRecommendation 15:Tap into carbon finance to offset public investment needs.Depending on the country context,electric mobility could in some cases prove to be a zero or low-cost approach to carbon abatement.Moreover,analysis suggests that carbon

191、 credits could in principle cover a material proportion of the incremental investment cost,particularly well-suited to critical areas of public investment,such as the development of charging infrastructure or the purchase of higher-cost electric buses.As of today,however,there has been little or no

192、experience with designing carbon transactions in a manner suitable for supporting the development of electric mobility.Claiming carbon credits via results-based climate financing could be an option to explore more systematically.Recommendation 16:Examine fiscal implications of electric mobility and

193、make adjustments as needed.As noted,given the shifting patterns of demand for vehicles and associated fuels,the transition to electric mobility is unlikely to be fiscally neutral.On the contrary,given prevalent patterns of taxation and subsidization for vehicles and energy,the electrification of the

194、 transport sector is likely to erode established fiscal revenue bases,notably fuel taxation.While a certain amount of fiscal incentive may be helpful to catalyze the transition in the early stages;over time,the fiscal architecture will need to adapt to this new reality.Like many transitions,while th

195、e trajectory is uncertain the ultimate destination is clear.Electric mobility is an agenda of increasing relevance to LMICs given its potential to contribute to multiple development challenges.However,each country will need to find the right moment and the right reasons for electrifying its transpor

196、t sector.Many factors will shape the electric mobility transition in each country,including the nature of the vehicle fleet and the wider energy supply situation.But for most countries it will make sense to target smaller and/or higher mileage vehicles first,channel scarce public resources toward de

197、velopment of charging infrastructure,provide mechanisms for consumer finance,and coordinate closely with the electricity sector.Why Is Electric Mobility a Development Issue?CH A P T E R 12Why is Electric Mobility a Development Issue?1Why Is Electric Mobility a Development Issue?Mobility is essential

198、 for economic and social development but in its current form the transport sector in most countries is not sustainable.Pollution is among the most severe problems brought on by the transport sector,causing an estimated 7.8 million years of life lost annually which translates into about US$1 trillion

199、 in health damages globally(Annenberg et al.2019).Transport is also a major driver of global warming,responsible for about a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels(IEA 2020).Given the vast vehicle stock in industrialized countries and continued rapid motorization in low

200、-and middle-income countries(LMIC),the need to decarbonize transport is urgent.Electric vehicles(EVs)will contribute toward this goal,complementing other sustainability priorities such as a modal shift to nonmotorized and public transport.Like other major technological changes,EVs will be disruptive

201、triggering major changes in transport-related sectors,which are a large economic force and major employer in most countries.These disruptions will certainly play out over the next few decades.Good public policy can ensure a smooth transition.Countries should therefore prepare for and promote the ele

202、ctric mobility transition as one critical element in an overall shift toward a sustainable transport and energy system.For the purpose of this report,EV refers to a battery electric vehicle(BEV)or a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle(PHEV).It does not include hybrid electric vehicles that cannot be plu

203、gged in.Almost 130 years after the earliest electric vehicles emerged,the electrification of transport is approaching a tipping point(Sperling 2018).Numerous automobile firms have announced a shift to producing EVs mostly or even exclusively,and they face stiff competition from newly formed electric

204、-only companies.Countries,regions,and cities have announced bans on the registration or operation of internal combustion engines in the near future(Wappelhorst 2020).Further technology advances and scale economies are quickly reducing the cost of key components in electric vehiclesnotably the batter

205、y pack.For some vehicle types and in some markets,EVs already have a lower total cost of ownership than internal combustion engine vehicles(ICEVs).Examples are fleet vehicles or two-and three-wheelers that provide essential shared transport services in many lower income countries.Effective policies

206、can accelerate these trends.Like any major technological change,the electric mobility transition will create winners and losers.It will shrink a massive and complex fossil fuel-based infrastructure built over more than a hundred years that delivered unimagined mobility for people and goods.The shift

207、 will affect how vehicles are built and traded and how they are fueled and serviced.Opportunities for smart entrepreneurs and businesses will be numerous.3Why is Electric Mobility a Development Issue?1Many firms,though,will experience painful adjustment or leave the sector,and labor-market turnover

208、could be considerable.Jobs will likely be lost in automobile production beyond those already experienced to automation.In other areas,such as building a charging infrastructure,new jobs will be created.Whether these disruptions will cause widespread social hardship will depend on the effectiveness o

209、f public policies that can mitigate harm.Electrification is only one of the ways to decarbonize the transport sector.EVs address the pollution problem but not other transport sector externalities,such as congestion,road safety,or the large amount of land that transport infrastructure requires.Electr

210、ification is therefore only one element in a comprehensive sustainable transport policy that involves such measures as reducing unnecessary travel;making nonmotorized travel and public transit safer,cheaper,and more convenient;and shifting goods transport from trucks to rail or ship where possible.T

211、his chapter discusses the broader development implications of the electric mobility transition.It argues that electric mobility will have important environmental,economic,and social impacts in low-and middle-income countries where EV uptake has so far been low or absent(see,for example,Dane,Wright,a

212、nd Montmasson-Clair 2019).The focus,as in the report overall,is on passenger road transport.The electric mobility transition will take time,although major technological shifts often occur more quickly than anticipated.Not all countries will or should immediately make EVs a priority.Waiting for techn

213、ology to advance and costs to come down will sometimes make sense.But all countries should develop an electric mobility strategy.The following chapters in this report will discuss when is an appropriate time to start implementation and how to facilitate the transition to electrified transport with e

214、ffective public policies.Rapid Motorization,Environmental Concerns and Technological Change Drive the Electric Mobility TransitionMobility is a fundamental need and,all else equal,people prefer personal transport.Owning a vehicle makes it easier to access services,jobs,and other opportunities.A vehi

215、cle is also an aspirational purchase and status symbol.More than 1.2 billion vehiclespassenger cars,buses,motor coaches,trucks,and tractorswere in use globally in 2018(World Road Statistics 2020).F1F Most years,the car population grows by more than 4 percent,the largest increases in the East Asia an

216、d Pacific region.As vehicle ownership in high-income countries is close to saturation levels,two-thirds of the increase in car ownership will occur in countries that are not members of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD)(Sims et al.2014).This rise in the global fleet cou

217、ld be enormous.If China(166 vehicles per 1,000 population in 2018)4Why is Electric Mobility a Development Issue?1were to reach motorization rates like those of Australia or Poland(about 720),770 million vehicles would be added.India(about 25 vehicles per 1,000)reaching the same level would add anoth

218、er 940 million1(World Road Statistics 2020).In principle,increased vehicle ownership could yield enormous personal and societal benefits,which is why many governments encourage car ownership.Those benefits come with considerable social costs,however.Vehicles using internal combustion engines cause l

219、ocal pollution that has immediate effects on the health of the local population and climate pollution that contributes to global warming.Local air pollution from transport is associated with health conditions such as heart and lung disease,cancer,complications during pregnancy,and adverse birth outc

220、omes(Health Effects Institute 2010).Specifically,burning gasoline or diesel fuel releases nitrogen oxides(NOx),carbon monoxide(CO),ozone,sulfur dioxides(SOx)and volatile organic compounds(VOCs).NOx and VOCs combine to form coarse(PM10)and fine(PM2.5)particulate matter.Exposure to particulate matter

221、can also affect mental health(Braithwaite et al.2019).Although severe health impacts are cumulative and not immediately felt,air pollution is visible.This has helped motivate governments to tighten air quality controls,most prominently in urban China(World Bank and EV100 2022;World Bank and Developm

222、ent Research Center of the State Council 2014).Commuters,cyclists,pedestrians,and residents living near busy urban roads or transport corridors are most affected by air pollution(Cepeda et al.2017).One estimate puts the global annual deaths from traffic related PM2.5 and ozone exposure at 385,000 in

223、 2015,which equates to 11.4 percent of total deaths attributed to such pollution(Annenberg et al.2019).Poorer countries with older vehicle stocks and laxer emission controls experience higher air pollution exposure,as do households with low socioeconomic status.Poorer households are more likely to l

224、ive near pollution sources including heavily trafficked roads.Poorer children spend more time outside,and their households cannot afford mitigation options such as air purifiers.Satellite data analysis in Dar es Salaam,Tanzania,for example,suggests that areas of high traffic volume and associated ai

225、r pollution tend to coincide with low-income neighborhoods(Dasgupta,Lall,and Wheeler 2020).Higher air pollution exposure,combined with higher susceptibility to poor health,results in major health disparities driven by environmental factors(Hajat,Hsia,and ONeill 2015).Combustion of fossil fuels also

226、produces carbon dioxide(CO2),which is the main contributor to global warming,as well as other pollutants with high warming potential,such as nitrogen oxides or black carbon.In 2019,oil supplied more than 90 percent of the total energy consumed by the transport sector.This generated almost 8.5 GtCO2(

227、emissions fell to 7 GtCO2 in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic)or about a quarter of all global greenhouse gas emissions(IEA 2021a).These emissions have been rising fast as improvements in fuel 1.World Bank staff estimate based on World Road Statistics data5Why is Electric Mobility a Development Iss

228、ue?1efficiency are more than offset by more and bigger vehicles and higher travel volumes.In fact,the transport sector is the only major sector whose greenhouse gas emissions have steadily risen during the last decade(figure 1.1).In 2019,they were almost three times as high as in 1970,70 percent com

229、ing from road transport,which grew even faster than transport overall(IPCC 2021).Electrification of transport,using clean,renewably generated electricity is possible today because of major improvements in several technology sectors.Three are especially important:vehicle technology,especially batteri

230、es and electric motors;digitalization of production and management of vehicles and charging infrastructure;and electricity production and the shift from dirty to clean power.Powerful and efficient batteries are the most important technology advance.Batteries account for about one-third of the total

231、price of an electric vehicle(Knig et al.2021),but their cost is rapidly falling.Learning rateshow much the price falls with a doubling of productionare between 20 percent and 27 percent(Ziegler and Trancik 2021).The real price of lithium-ion cells(scaled by energy capacity)has declined by about 97 p

232、ercent since their commercial introduction in the early 1990s.Batteries,in combination with highly efficient motors and regenerative braking,allow for a far 055TransportElectricityIndustryBuildingsOther%change%change(201019)20102019Annual CO2 emissions(Gt)FIGURE 1.1.Annual Carbon Dioxide

233、Emissions by SectorSource:IEA 2021a6Why is Electric Mobility a Development Issue?1better use of energy inputs.More than two-thirds of the energy used by ICEVs is wasted as heat,whereas EVs use more than three-quarters of the power delivered through the grid(U.S.Department of Energy 2011).Digitalizat

234、ion is the second relevant area of technological change because EVs are much simpler in terms of their mechanical components but rely on more complex electronics.An EV may contain more than 100 semiconductors to manage batteries,sensors that control powertrain and drivetrain management,and various s

235、afety and communication components.Digital technologies are also essential in new vehicle production facilities.Because EVs are fundamentally different,car companies have built new,highly automated factories.Electric charging infrastructure also relies on information and communications technologyfro

236、m automatically matching a connected car to the drivers charge account to making EVs part of the electric grid of the future by allowing them to draw and supply electricity depending on demand,electricity prices and owner preferences.Finally,massive innovation has also benefited the greening of elec

237、tricity production.Powering EVs with clean energy is one of the most important factors in determining how climate-friendly an electric vehicle will be.Fueling mobility with electricity could eventually make a complex supply infrastructure for fossil fuels obsolete.Getting gasoline or diesel to the p

238、ump requires exploration,extraction,transportation,refining,and distribution of oil products.All this happens over large distances across the globe.Historically,according to the International Monetary Fund,the fossil fuel industry has been able to offset some of these high costs with large subsidies

239、US$5.2 trillion,some 6.5 percent of global gross domestic product(GDP)in 2017(Coady et al.2019;see also Mahdavi,Martinez-Alvarez,and Ross 2020).Costs of renewable electricity generation have fallen sharply(table 1.1).Learning rates for wind and solar equipment are particularly steep and costs per ki

240、lowatt(kW)are now often lower than those for fossil fuel generated power(IRENA 2020a).Rather than annually burning through more than a million years of photosynthesis embedded in fossil fuels,ways to produce most of the worlds annual energy useincluding for mobilityfrom just a years worth of solar r

241、adiation are now realistic scenarios(Carbon Tracker 2021).22.With the exception of geothermal,practically all renewable energy is ultimately produced by incoming solar radiation thatpowers pressure gradients generating wind as well as the hydrologic cycle.TABLE 1.1.Power Generation Costs from Solar

242、and Wind Power TechnologiesConcentrated solarPhotovoltaicOnshore windOffshore windPercent power cost reduction 20819Source:IRENA 2020b.7Why is Electric Mobility a Development Issue?1The Electric Mobility Transition Will Have Environmental,Economic,and Social ImpactsBecause turnover of the

243、 vehicle stock takes time,the impact of the electric mobility transition will be felt gradually in all areas of the transport sector.This transition is under way in many high-income and some emerging economies and will eventually also gather momentum in middle-and even low-income countries.The trans

244、ition will need to be largely market driven,although policies will initially facilitate and accelerate the switch to electric vehicles.As the electric mobility transition unfolds,it will affect three areas critical for LIMCs:the environment,the economy,and social welfare.These are also three pillars

245、 of development:sustainability,growth,and inclusion.Sustainability is the main driver of the transition,but the economy will be central to its success because the electrification of transport affects several important supply chains and markets:for vehicles and parts,for raw materials,and for fuels t

246、hat will be phased out and those that will replace them.Changes and disruptions in each of these markets can have social implications,especially in relevant labor markets,where some types of jobs will disappear and others be created.Environmental ImpactsThe prospect of lowering the transport sectors

247、 environmental footprint is the main motivation for increasingly ambitious policies to promote EVs.For developed countries,and from a global perspective,reduction of CO2 emission is a chief priority and a motivation strong enough to pursue rapid adoption of EVs.For developing countries,however,the m

248、ost pressing and evident motivations are linked to reduction of local pollutants,improvement of the associated health issues,and more generally the need for better air quality and noise reduction.Expected lower costs of owning and operating an EV is a useful side effect that will reinforce the elect

249、ric mobility transition.Local air pollution(principally NOx,PM,and SO2)and global climate pollution(CO2)are both generated along the entire vehicle-related supply chain,from vehicle production to fuel supply and vehicle operation and eventual disposal.Well-to-tank emissions occur in the production o

250、f fuels such as gasoline and diesel and in electricity generation.Fossil fuels require extraction,transport,refining,and distribution.Electricity generation also still depends largely on fossil fuels.Operation of ICEVs causes tank-to-wheel(TTW)emissions that are strictly regulated in many countries,

251、for instance,through the EURO standards in the European Union.TTW emissions can be estimated using information about the age of the vehicle stock and average distances traveled per year.Industry lifecycle analyses have generated estimated emissions from production and disposal of vehicles(European C

252、ommission et al.2020).Absolute emission reductions from increased use of EVs depend on the size of countries and vehicle fleet composition.For instance,under a realistic EV adoption scenario,as described in chapter 2,India could 8Why is Electric Mobility a Development Issue?1achieve average annual C

253、O2 emission reductions of 87 million tons,and Vanuatu could avoid 18,000 tons.The power generation mix determines local pollution.Egypt and India both depend heavily on fossil fuels.Egypt,though,would see large reductions in SO2 emissions because it uses natural gas for 70 percent of its electricity

254、 generation,whereas coal-dependent India would see growing SO2 emissions with increased generation to power EVs.In relative terms,Vietnam would see the greatest average annual CO2 emission reductionsabout 28 percent.Other countries with large emission reductions are Nepal and Uruguay,both of which u

255、se renewables for power generation almost exclusively.For economic analysis,air and climate pollution estimates are converted to monetary costs.For climate pollution,this is the social cost of carbonformally,this is the discounted cost of damages that will be caused by,say,a ton of CO2 equivalent.A

256、more practical way to think about this is as an estimate of the price or tax on emissions that would be required to trigger sufficient changes to achieve climate goals such as those in the Paris agreement.The High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices and World Bank guidelines recommend a carbon price o

257、f US$40 to US$80 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2020,rising to US$60 to US$100 by 2030.Local air pollution has more immediate effects on human health.An extensive literature on health impacts details a range from reductions in productivity to increased mortality.Damages are most severe in l

258、ower-income countries(Roy 2016;World Bank 2022a).The economic costs of such impacts are typically estimated using the concept of the value of a statistical life,which quantifies essentially how much,on average,people are willing to pay to reduce their mortality risk.Average annual savings(reductions

259、 in damage costs)from lower CO2 emissions are highest in India,at more than US$2 billion,and in Egypt from PM10 reductions,at almost US$1.8 billion.Economic ImpactsFor well over 100 years,automobile manufacturers have built internal combustion engines.As both policies and economics start to favor el

260、ectric vehicles,manufacturers have begun to retool their production facilities.The industry is highly concentrated.In 2019,61 percent of global motor vehicle productionmore than 56 million vehicleshappened in just five countries:China,Germany,India,Japan,and the United States(OICA 2019).The top 10 c

261、ountries account for 80 percent.Brazil,Mexico,Thailand,Russia,and Turkey also have large automobile production sectors.Most production facilities are owned by large,multinational companies.The top five global manufacturers produced 43 percent of vehicles,the top ten more than 65 percent.Five Chinese

262、 car companies are the only manufacturers from a middle-income country among the top 20.Vehicle Supply ChainsThese manufacturers have the deep pockets needed for the research and development to design complex vehicle components and build large production facilities.Electric vehicles,however,have few

263、er moving 9Why is Electric Mobility a Development Issue?1parts and do not require components such as transmissions,fuel systems,or catalytic converters.This has several implications.The impact of the shift will be large for firms building complex gas or diesel engines,but perhaps even greater for su

264、ppliers of parts and components that are not needed in EVs.International firms have built local supplier networks in countries where they manufacture or assemble vehicles.Thus,a drop in demand for car components could affect suppliers in countries such as Mexico or Turkey.Production of key EV compon

265、ents such as motors and batteries,in contrast,is still highly concentrated.Most lithium-ion battery cells today are manufactured in China,although additional large manufacturing is done in Hungary,Japan,South Korea,and the United States.As vehicle manufacturing shifts from complex engine systems to

266、assembly of mostly standardized electric motors and battery packs,value-added in vehicles will come from clever integration of components.This leaves scope for new entrants that may be competitive even with smaller production runs and could be an excellent opportunity for manufacturers or assembly p

267、lants in low-and middle-income countries.In fact,the big auto manufacturers and powerhouse technology firms are already teaming with local car assemblers in Africa,Asia,and Latin America to bolster EV assembly lines(Arroyo-Arroyo and Vesin 2021).Innovative start-ups are emerging in Kenya,Rwanda,and

268、Uganda to come up with affordable EV alternatives,particularly for 2Ws but also affordable options for buses and trucks in which the vehicle body is repurposed and an electric powertrain installed.Kenyas Opibus is an example of such start-ups.Stricter climate policies will favor manufacturing locati

269、ons with access to cleaner energy.EV battery production is a good example.The smaller its carbon footprint,the greater will be the environmental benefit of an EV relative to an internal combustion engine(ICE)vehicle.The production of a conventional gasoline car produces about 5 metric tons of CO2 em

270、issions and consumes approximately 100 gigajoule(GJ)of energy,whereas the production of a BEV(assuming a 24 kWh battery)produces more than 8 metric tons of CO2 emissions and consumes about 180 GJ of energy.The lithium-ion battery alone accounts for an average 3 metric tons of the CO2 emissions(Helms

271、,Kmper,and Lambrecht 2015).Given the current power mix in different countries,battery cell manufacturing in China currently generates 1106 g CO2eq per kWh capacity,745 g in Japan,663 g in the United States,634 g in South Korea and 468 g in the EU(Meyer et al.2018).Battery production with a higher sh

272、are of renewables in the power mix will have an advantage in places with strict climate policies,including possible border tax adjustments on the embedded CO2 content of imports.A quick transition to electric mobility in industrialized countries could accelerate exports of used ICE vehicles to low-a

273、nd middle-income countries.The volume of such exports is already large(UNEP 2020).In 2018,the EU,Japan,and the United States exported almost 4 million used cars,of which more than 80 percent went to low-and middle-income countries.The EU was the source of more than half of the total,including 1 mill

274、ion exported to Africa,followed by Japan(27 percent)and the United States(18 percent).Africa,where used 10Why is Electric Mobility a Development Issue?1light-duty vehicles account for 60 percent of the total growth of the vehicle fleet,was the largest importing region(40 percent),followed by Eastern

275、 Europe(24 percent),the Asia Pacific(15 percent),the Middle East(12 percent),and Latin America(9 percent).Among countries,Serbia,Nigeria,and the United Arab Emirates imported the largest number of used cars from the three major exporting regions(see table 1.2).Used vehicles are not necessarily more

276、polluting or less safe than the existing vehicle fleet in an importing country.For instance,Japan has strict vehicle inspections and many drivers replace their cars after only about four years of service(UNEP 2020).But many of the exported cars are older or poorly maintained and sometimes emission c

277、ontrols have been removed to recover valuable metals from catalytic converters.By sending such cars to lower-income countries,wealthier regions clean up pollution at home by shifting it to other parts of the world rather than reducing it overall.This increases local pollution in poorer countries and

278、 makes no contribution to limiting global greenhouse gas emissions similar to shifts in heavy industry in the 1990s and 2000s(Peters et al.2011).Adoption of electric vehicles should therefore be complemented by efforts to keep highly polluting cars off the road elsewhere.Many countries already use a

279、 range of policy tools to manage the used vehicle trade.Of 146 countries analyzed in the UNEP report,18 ban used-car imports outright.Most of these are middle-income countries with significant domestic vehicle manufacturing,including Brazil,China,India,Indonesia,Thailand,Turkey,and South Africa.If t

280、hose vehicles are produced to low standards,however,import bans may well keep cars built to higher standards elsewhere out of the market.Age limits are used by 66 countries to keep older vehicles out and 28 countries have modest vehicle emission standards.However,100 countries have no emission stand

281、ards for imports.Some countries use selective bans(such as of diesel vehicles),some require labeling of emission performance,and many use fiscal tools such as age-based taxation or progressive excise taxes based on greenhouse gas emissions or engine size.Finally,some countries have exceptions for hy

282、brid electric or electric cars.The UN Environmental Program report concludes that 81 of 146 countries have weak TABLE 1.2.The 10 Largest Import Markets for Used Vehicles,2018RankMarketNumber of Imports1Serbia260,0782United Arab Emirates238,8103Nigeria238,7604Ukraine173,0115Libyan Arab Jamahiriya161,

283、8146Bosnia and Herzegovina132,5867Tanzania125,8458Georgia125,7459New Zealand101,03410Chile91,827Source:UNDP 2020.11Why is Electric Mobility a Development Issue?1or very weak policies,and that 47 have good or very good policies to manage used vehicle imports.As results from the analysis in this repor

284、t suggest,high shares of cheaper used ICEV imports can slow down the adoption of electric vehicles.Policies of the type listed here can help accelerate the electric mobility transition.Supply Chains for BatteriesA successful transition to electric mobility implies a sharp rise in the demand for raw

285、materials required to produce EV components.This raises the question whether a sufficient,secure,and sustainable supply of critical raw materials will be available at a price that ensures at least cost parity between EVs and ICEVs.Essential raw materials to produce current EV batteries include lithi

286、um,nickel,cobalt,manganese,and graphite.Other raw materials are important inputs for fuel cells(such as platinum),electric motors(rare earth elements),and for expanding electric grids and charging infrastructure(copper).Global known resources of these materials exceed projected demand significantly,

287、even when considering a parallel rise in demand from other uses(NOW 2020a).Global reservesthe share of resources that can be economically extractedgenerally also appear sufficient under current scenarios.The projected demand increases may strain supply chains,however.In the IEA Sustainable Developme

288、nt Scenario the demand for lithium,graphite,cobalt,nickel,and manganese for EVs will see a growth of between 16 times and 42 times42 times,25 times,21 times,41 times,and 16 times,respectivelybetween 2020 and 2040(IEA 2021b).Reserves of key raw materials are concentrated in a small number of countrie

289、s most of which are developing countries(table 1.3).The Democratic Republic of Congo accounted for about 70 percent of global cobalt production in 2019,and South Africa and Brazil have 60 percent of the world reserves of manganese(IEA 2021b;USGS 2021).Most of these raw materials are not refined and

290、processed locally.More than 50 percent of global refining of copper,cobalt,lithium,and nickel is located in China(NOW 2020a).The country also produces about 80 percent of refined rare earth minerals.With such levels of concentration,disruption of mining or processing operations in a single country h

291、as global repercussions.TABLE 1.3.Major Sources of Raw Materials for Batteries and Fuel CellsCobaltAustralia,Canada,Cuba,Dem.Rep.of Congo,Philippines,RussiaCopperAustralia,Chile,China,Dem.Rep.of Congo,Peru,United StatesGraphiteBrazil,China,TurkeyLithiumArgentina,Australia,Bolivia,Chile,China,Russia,

292、United States,ZimbabweManganeseAustralia,Brazil,South Africa,UkraineNickelAustralia,Brazil,Canada,China,Cuba,Indonesia,New Caledonia,Philippines,RussiaPlatinumRussia,South Africa,ZimbabweSource:NOW 2020a;USGS 2021.12Why is Electric Mobility a Development Issue?1A second concern relates to the social

293、 and environmental impacts of mining operations.This is particularly important because a significant portion of the mining reserves are in developing countries with poor governance,weak environmental and social safeguards,and a deficient track record of enforcement of existing policies.Poorly manage

294、d,revenue from resource extraction comes with high hidden costs.Cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo has raised substantial environmental,community,and human rights issues(Amnesty International 2016).Much of cobalt is extracted in so-called artisanal mines where miners have no access to

295、 protective equipment and basic social protections.Reports about child labor have also been made.Major global customers have reacted and try to ensure that cobalt used in their products was mined under socially responsible conditions.Other parts of the supply chain remain less discriminating.Mining

296、almost always raises environmental concerns and mining for materials that are essential for the energy transition are no exception(Sovacool et al.2020).Lithium mining consumes large amounts of water.In South America,it occurs in areas that are water stressed,creating potential conflicts between indu

297、strial and community use(see Liu and Agusdinata 2020).Finally,recycling and reuse of batteries is both a challenge and an opportunity for developing countries.The disposal of used batteries can be an environment hazard.Their recycling and reuse offer an opportunity to recover expensive and scarce ra

298、re minerals and minimize the social and environmental impacts of mining operations.It would also open business opportunities when setting in place battery recycling facilities and leasing and repurposing schemes.A main challenge is to set in place and enforce directives to promote battery recycling.

299、This might call for international regulations and agreements.Unfortunately,the global experience on country-specific regulations and directives to promote battery recycling is limited.Supply Chains for Maintenance and FuelingBeyond vehicle cost and fuel,the third major cost factor for vehicle owners

300、hip is operations and maintenance.This includes insurance,taxes and registration,fuel or electricity,as well as servicing and repairing a vehicle.In modern vehicles,repairs typically involve swapping entire component groups.The automotive aftermarket includes the manufacturing,sales,and installation

301、 of additional or replacement parts by original equipment manufacturers,specialized automotive suppliers,and generic manufacturers.One estimate put the global size of this market at US$760 billion in 2015 with expected growth rates averaging 3 percent per year(Breitschwerdt et al.2017).An increase i

302、n electric vehicles will reduce the size of this market.EVs have fewer moving parts and fewer parts overall.Service intervals are longer.Complex and repair-intensive parts like radiators,pistons,or fuel pumps are absent.Regenerative braking reduces wear of brakes and brake pads.Only tires tend to we

303、ar out more quickly because of the larger weight of EVs and the greater torque of electric motors.Overall,both BEVs and PHEVs are expected to incur about half the maintenance costs of ICE vehicles(Harto 2020).The transition to electric mobility will also change the business model of the fueling infr

304、astructure,especially gas stations,which number well over 100,000 each in the United States and China and about 40,000 in Brazil.13Why is Electric Mobility a Development Issue?1EVs can in principle be charged anywhere grid access is available(24/7 Wall St.2020;Deloitte 2019).Private charging happens

305、 at single or multifamily homes or at the workplace including for commercial vehicle fleets.Public charging includes charge points at public parking lots such as at retail locations,at decentralized charge points along urban streets,andas with current gas stationsat charging hubs within towns and ci

306、ties or along major transport corridors.The split between public and private charging depends on many factors,one study predicts that by 2030,private charging in Germany will account for 76 percent to 88 percent of the total(NOW 2020b).On that basis,the study expects a required ratio of EVs to publi

307、c charging points that will rise from 11:1 in 2021 to 20:1 in 2030 as private charging infrastructure expands.These ratios are place specific.Areas with large apartment buildings will require a larger share of public chargers than less dense suburbs.A larger proportion of public chargers will also b

308、e needed in countries where electricity access is not universal.The EV charging business model also includes the battery-as-a-service approach in which the private sector of LMICs can engage in providing battery leasing and swapping services.This approach will,first,keep demand on the power grid und

309、er control and the provision of charging stations decentralized,but second,it can significantly reduce the capital cost of EVs when separating the cost of the vehicle from that of the battery,transferring the cost of obsolesce and depreciation from users to the private sector that can mitigate by ec

310、onomies of scale.Changes in maintenance costs and fueling infrastructure directly affect the economics of EV adoption.Lower maintenance needs directly reduce the total cost of ownership for EVs.Estimates derived from the analysis in chapter 2 suggest that annual per vehicle savings depend on local f

311、actors including the vehicle fleet composition,and could be into the order of US$977 for Ethiopia and US$864 for Ghana.The shift away from gasoline and diesel requires investments in private and public charging facilities.The scenarios estimate that India will need to build more than 2 million charg

312、ers by 2030 at a cost of US$4.4 billion.Vietnam will need to spend about US$275 million and Nigeria US$175 million.These costs are at least partially offset by cost savings in the fossil fuel supply chain.Savings are highest for buses,so countries like Ethiopia which have a larger proportion of buse

313、s in new vehicle registrations see the largest annual per vehicle savings of about US$11,650.Fossil Fuel Supply ChainAs electricity replaces oil as a transport fuel,demand for oil should in principle dropalong with its priceleaving only the lowest cost producers in the market.How quickly this transi

314、tion could occur is uncertain.A range of factors affect the uptake of alternative fuels,including technology,policy,and consumer preference.Even in the most ambitious climate mitigation scenarios,such as IEAs Net Zero Scenario(IEA 2021a),oil demand does not drop substantially in the near future due

315、to oil use for non-energy purposes;oil use with carbon capture,usage,and storage in industrial applications;and continued oil use in applications like aviation.14Why is Electric Mobility a Development Issue?1In fact,many forecasts predict that oil demand in passenger transport will remain flat or de

316、cline only modestly in the next 10 to 20 years(Kah 2018;Hensley,Knupter,and Pinner 2018).This is because passenger vehicles accounted for only 23 percent of global oil demand in 2017.Trucks,ships,and planes,where electric options are limited,consume 29 percent of all oil used.Industry,petrochemicals

317、,power,and other sectors account for the remainder.Biofuels are an alternative but expensive and come with their own environmental drawbacks.As economies grow,increasing demand for industry and other modes of transportation could more than offset the amount of oil displaced by electricity in the pas

318、senger vehicle market.Furthermore,even if the share of electric vehicles increases,a rapid growth of the vehicle fleet in countries with rising incomes may well lead to a net increase of ICEVs and higher emissions in the short to medium term,especially if the vehicle miles traveled also rise.Once EV

319、s eventually start to reduce oil demand,public revenue could decline in oil producing countries.Many small oil and gas producers in Latin America,the Middle East,North Africa,and Sub-Saharan Africa did not significantly contribute to climate change historically but are economically the most vulnerab

320、le to such income losses.Countries can pursue two broad strategies to reduce their risk(Peszko et al.2020).The first is to use current resource revenue to diversify economic activities by investing more in education and innovation,ecosystems services,and boosting their social capital and institution

321、s.The second is to foster climate cooperation within the international community to enable a more comprehensive structural transition toward a low-carbon economy and to compensate the most vulnerable population groups that are negatively affected by the transition.Oil-importing countries will experi

322、ence positive impacts because large oil imports can have disruptive effects on current account balances and heighten macroeconomic uncertainty when prices fluctuate(Yalta and Yalta 2017).A study for the UK predicts that replacing imported oil products with domestically produced renewable energy for

323、mobility will benefit household incomes and promote GDP expansion and employment(Alabi et al.2020).Electricity Supply ChainAlthough fossil transport fuel demand should eventually fall,the shift to EVs will increase electricity consumption.Analysis for this report confirms other estimates that EVs ar

324、e unlikely to cause a substantial increase in electricity demand in the near to medium term.Assuming a 30 percent share of sales by 2030 for electric cars and buses and of 70 percent for electric two-and three-wheelers by 2030,electricity demand will increase by less than 5 percent for most countrie

325、s studieda small increase that can be absorbed by existing power systems or by modest capacity increases.In some countries with severe power generation constraints,such as the Sahelian countries,the impact on power generation can be massive and not feasible in the short term even if only 2Ws and 3Ws

326、 shift to electric.EV adoption,however,could have a significant impact on the shape of the electricity load curve if charging is uncoordinated and mostly occurs during early evening peak hours.This can threaten the stability of the power 15Why is Electric Mobility a Development Issue?1grid,require m

327、ore reserve capacity,and increase overall system costs.Chapter 4 of this report reviews policies to prepare power systems to cope with these impacts.Although EVs produce zero tailpipe emissions on the road,upstream emissions could be substantial.EVs will be greenest where damage from ICE vehicles is

328、 high and the electric grid is relatively clean.Where electricity is generated from coal,electric cars and buses can sometimes cause more harm than ICE vehicles(Holland et al.2016).This does not apply to electric two-wheelers.Even when using electricity from fossil fuels,such as coal,they have 20 to

329、 30 percent lower climate impacts than conventional motorcycles.When powered with renewable energy,their climate change impact is reduced by 60 to 80 percent(Cox and Mutel 2018).More generally,when powering EVs with electricity derived from fossil fuels,pollution is shifted from densely populated ur

330、ban areas to areas around large power plants,mines,and waste disposal sites(Hendryx,Zullig,and Luo 2020;Cropper et al.2021).Coal burning emits more harmful pollutants than any other fuel source;further,disposal of coal ash,which is often poorly regulated,exposes nearby residents to heavy metals that

331、 can contaminate drinking water supplies.The burden is often on the poorest.But electrifying transport still makes sense even when much of the power comes from fossil fuel sources.Vehicle electrification in China does not currently reduce CO2 emissions because of the countrys coal-intensive grid(Pen

332、g et al.2018).More than 41,000 premature deaths,however,would still be avoided annually by shifting air pollution from dense urban to sparsely populated rural areas.Any reduction of coal in the power mix increases the number of lives saved.Social ImpactsThe electric mobility transition is a signific

333、ant technological change,and such shifts are often accompanied by some degree of social impact.Disruptions in the markets for vehicles,fuels,and transport-related services will affect labor markets in these sectors.The magnitude of these impacts is uncertain because the electric mobility transition will have ambiguous macroeconomic effects and play out over a long time,especially in lower-income c