This report is one of the results of ELAN, a survey of battery electric vehicle owners and prospective future owners, i.e. A user survey was also conducted in 2016, drawn from members of the same organizations as in 2018.
Background
Knowledge gaps
The ELAN project targets and research questions
Answers to such questions are also important to our understanding of how the transition to electric vehicles impacts on other environmental transport sector objectives and potential feedback or side effects, which is the topic of ELAN WP5 "Side Effects".
Structure of the Report
Theory
Methods and research design
Data – samples of BEV– and ICEV owners
Therefore, it was decided to send the survey (NAF II) out to a different sample from their membership base. The study and the letter of invitation have been approved by the Norwegian Center for Research Data (NSD).
The questionnaire
The response rate of the second NAF survey (NAF II) was also low, but this was due to the short response time: The survey closed one week after it was sent and no reminders were sent. The low response rate is consistent with that seen in other net-based surveys in later years.
Reporting by vehicle, not by person
Representativeness of the sample
One or more BEV vehicles in the household, and possibly other types of vehicles in the household. In the national statistics of the BEV fleet, retrieved from the Statistics Norway, there is data on the geographic location of the BEVs.
Changes in socio-demographics between 2016 and 2018
In addition, there has been a significant increase in the proportion of people outside the labor force among BEV owners during the same period. This can be explained by an increase in the proportion of ICEV owners who are outside the labor force from 2016 to 2018 and the high proportion of pensioners (36 percent) among ICEV owners in 2018.
Socio-demographic differences by vehicle ownership
The BEV households with multiple vehicles (either with only BEVs or at least one BEV) differs from multi-vehicle households with no BEV in terms of household size; The motorist households with a BEV are generally younger, have more female owners, are slightly better educated and have a slightly higher income than the car households without a BEV. The share of households with a household income above NOK 1.2 million is significantly (p<0.001, two-tailed test) higher in multi-BEV households without other vehicle types compared to multi-BEV households that also have other vehicle types (54 versus 42 percent) .
Reasons for buying the vehicle
In addition, environmental concerns were more important to the BEV owners than the ICEV owners (overall), while the situation is reversed when it comes to safety concerns. BEV owners tended to attach less importance to given aspects and characteristics of the vehicle than ICEV owners. BEV owners placed greater importance on driving distance, energy costs and environmental impact than ICEV owners did.
Other factors of importance for buying an e-vehicle
In summary, both types of owners value the reliability of the vehicle, its driving ability and the purchase price the most. Shares reporting that "access to bus lanes" and "lower ferry prices" were "highly/critically" important to purchasing a vehicle also saw significant increases over the same period. The greater importance of bus lanes is a puzzle, as restrictions on this access apply in more and more locations due to the increase in the BEV fleet.
Additional vehicle or replacement of a vehicle?
The biggest difference between BEV and ICEV respondents in the reason for purchasing the vehicle was the "wish to use another vehicle less", which was stated by 37 percent of BEV owners. It is time-saving to travel by car Less wants to use another car in the household**. This probably indicates that having two vehicles or more in the household requires higher household income.
Need for roof rack, tow hook, 4WD
As we have seen in previous chapters, this can be related to economic and/or environmental reasons. In addition, bivariate analysis shows that there is a positive and significant and positive relationship between household income and the answer "want to use another vehicle less in the household" among BEV respondents, as shown in Table 4.1. This means that even if these types of equipment become available on a BEV, part of the barrier to buying a BEV due to the need to carry things on the roof or in a trailer may still exist.
Daily travels
Therefore, the distance and time spent for journeys to work have been recalculated in Table 5.1, limiting the maximum distance to 150 km and the maximum time to 120 minutes. Distance to work can also be an indicator for the perceived competitiveness of public transport. The results show that BEV owners consistently traveled longer distances to work than ICEV owners.
Other daily trips
For example, half of BEV owners drove more than 19 km to get to work, while for ICEV owners it was 11 km. There are many financial and time benefits for BEV owners if they use a BEV instead of an ICEV on journeys to work, for example exemptions from tolls and access to the bus lanes and drastically reduced energy costs. The longer the distance to work, the greater the potential benefits of using a BEV instead of an ICEV, which could explain the differences in frequency of use, distance and time spent related to work trips between BEV owners and ICEV owners.
Daily charging and electricity connections used
Those who said they never or rarely charged more than monthly at home appeared to rely on a mix of workplace and public chargers, while charging less on the street, as seen in Figure 5.4. The results show that there is a significant and positive relationship between the degree of loading in the garage/private parking lot and how detached the place of residence of the respondent is (counting from apartment to terraced house/townhouse to detached house/villa). home) Workplace Available public facilities Daily 3-5 times/week 1-2 times/week 1-2 times/month More rarely Never. Regarding charging at the workplace, there was no significant correlation between frequency of charging and the type of residence.
Electricity connections used
The type of electrical connection also varied by vehicle make, as shown in Table 5.3. Brands compared to the average type of electricity connection in the sample of BEV respondents are indicated in bold. Respondents with a BMW i3 did not differ from the sample as a whole in terms of the electrical connection type used.
Frequency of vacation trips
The user survey contained a number of questions about long-distance journeys for both BEV and ICEV owners and about BEV owners' use and perception of the fast charger. The goal was to gain a better understanding of how BEVs and ICEVs are used on long-distance trips, especially on busy travel days, and how the network of fast chargers can help users on long-distance trips.
Characteristics of long distance travel
The largest differences in long-distance vehicle trips at peak travel times were observed during the summer holiday period, when a much higher proportion of trips by ICEV owners exceeded 300 km than by BEV owners, as shown in Figure 6.4. On the other hand, a higher proportion of BEV owners than ICEV owners reported not traveling long distances during such periods (answers not relevant). The average driving distance for those who said they made long-distance vehicle trips was longer for ICEV owners than BEV owners during the summer vacation period in 15 of the 18 provinces, as shown in Figure 6.6.
Fast charging on long distance trips
In 2018, queues were most often outside the owner's municipality, and the biggest problems were observed on long-distance journeys, as shown in Figure 6.10. A third of users said they were not willing to change the time of travel, a third were willing to start earlier or later on the same day, and 7-8 percent would be willing to change the day of travel, as shown in Figure 6.13. Users generally rated the availability, location, payment solutions, reliability and quality of fast chargers on long trips as good, as shown in Figure 6.14, with only about 1 in 10 (non-Tesla) users being dissatisfied.
Trips to the cabin
People in Østfold also have long distances to their recreational cabins, as this county is southeast of Oslo, while mountain destinations with a large number of cabins are mainly located north or west of Oslo. Almost half of the BEV owners said that they always or often come to their cabins with their BEV, but it is more common to use another household vehicle (72 percent of BEV owners own another vehicle) for this trip type, as seen in Figure 6.18. Of those who said they used the BEV to get to their cabin, the dominant places to charge were at the destination and at fast chargers on the way to the destination.
User reactions, range and charge issues on long trips
People in Oslo and Telemark were most concerned about reach, while people in Nordland and Aust-Agder were least concerned about queues. This chapter examines the overall annual driving pattern of different vehicle types and investigates changes in travel after vehicle purchase. The aim is to determine whether BEVs are driven more or less than other vehicle types and whether total vehicle-based household driving has changed differently for BEV owners than ICEV owners after vehicle purchase.
Yearly mileage measured as users stated km in their vehicle insurance contract . 46
The biggest changes in family travel behavior are found in car use with a large percentage (48 percent) reporting that they used a car more often or much more often as a family after purchasing the vehicle. A greater proportion of BEV owners report that the family had changed their travel behavior (in general) after purchasing the vehicle compared to ICEV owners (33 vs. 7 percent). 48 percent of BEV owners reported that they used a car more often or much more often than before purchasing the vehicle.
Travel challenges are small - Avoided and aborted trips
Buying the same vehicle again?
The figure shows that there was a big shift between 2016 and 2018 in the reason why they did not want to buy an ICEV again: In 2018, the share that reported that they would rather buy a PHEV decreased, while the share that reported that they would rather buy. buy a BEV increased compared to 2016. The share reporting "environmental characteristics of an ICEV" decreased in the same period, but this change is not significant (two-sided test). There were no other significant differences in the reasons for not wanting to buy an ICEV again in this period.
Advantages and disadvantages of BEVs
ICEV owners perceived driving range as the biggest drawback of BEV technological features. However, most ICEV owners did not have a strong perception of the used value of BEVs. ICEV owners perceived energy costs as the biggest advantage of BEVs: 54 percent reported that they rated it as a "major" or "small" advantage in 2018.
Discussion
Of the four main holiday periods, Summer, Easter, Autumn and Winter, summer was the period when the difference in reported long-distance driving behavior between BEV and ICEV owners was greatest. More ICEV owners than BEV owners said they make long-haul trips during this period. One quick charge (which adds a range of 100-150 km) increases that share to more than 70 percent of BEV owners and more than 50 percent of ICEV owners.
Conclusion
The overall effect, however, appears to be small as the increase in the average total km of insured household vehicles as reported by users was only about 2.4 percent. The other potential effect of the rollback of BEV policies is a potential for an increase in the total number of vehicles because BEVs are a cheaper means of transportation than an ICEV on a total cost of ownership basis. Also here an effect is evident in the data, up to 10 percent of BEVs are potentially additional vehicles that would not have been purchased as ICEVs.
Sources of error, reservation
However, average BEV buyers are in an age group where increased motorized transport needs may occur more often, for example to accompany children, while ICEV owners who are slightly older have fewer children living at home. family. The survey was designed to be representative of BEV owners (drawn from the membership register of the EV association (EVA)) and a geographically representative group of ICEV owners drawn from members of the Norwegian Automobile Association (NAF). This bias in the material was removed by analyzing NAF and EVA members who are working and in some cases by limiting the analysis to owners of 2011 (the year BEVs became a real alternative in the market) and newer model years.
Invitation to survey
Survey questions
Additional analysis
The household has grown in members The number of driving licenses has increased The need for travel has changed, including children.
