Having and can even be charged at homes, they

Having a mixed fleet of vehicles, governmentsand municipalities can arrange the charging and hydrogen production timingusing smart meters and incentives/disincentives charging time in a way thatminimum peak electricity generation capacity and electricity grid upgrade is needed.

Complementary in transition to emission-freetransportation: Although PHEVsare more polluting than BEVs and FCVs, theyare a cleaner technology compared to ICEVs. However, PHEVs are still anattractive alternative for ICE vehicles for reducing GHG emissions if fueled bybiofuel 6.This means that by incentivizing PHEVs, GHG emissionscan be reduced continuously while theneeded time for the diffusion of charging and refueling stations for BEVs andFCVs and the further development of technologiesused in BEVs and FCV is provided.

As BEVsneed less extensive charging infrastructure and can even be charged at homes, they can have asignificant role in emission reduction short-term and medium-term while with the increase in the number of HRSs, FCVs can contribute toemission reduction in the longer-term time frames. Complementary in vehicle size: If we consider the TCO (which includes bothupfront costs, fuel cost, and maintenance cost), PHEVs are more cost-efficientthat BEVs and FCVs in the short term 6. By 2025,all types of electric vehicles are competitors with ICEVs. It is also predicted that by 2030, PHEVs and BEVsare competitive for small cars, BEVs and FCVs are competitive for medium carsand FCVs will have an advantage for large cars. The TCO of FCVs is alsopredicted to be significantly lower than ICEVs by 2050. However, alltechnologies will have competitive TCO by 2050 for medium cars. BEVs will keeptheir advantage over FCVs for small cars in 2050 6.

So it can be concluded that BEV technology is more suitable forsmaller-size cars and short trips (urban driving) due to their charging timeand energy storage capacity (driving range) 6.   FCVs can provide options for longer tripsand can also be used for medium/larger cars as they have short refueling timeand have higher range compared to BEVs 6.This means that a scenario in which small ICEVs are replaced with BEVs and medium and large ICEVsare replaced with FCVs is morecost-efficient than a situation of all ICEV beingreplaced with the same technology (either it is BEV or FCV). Deployment of EVs is more appealing in early stages.

People can install chargers at home at a price of about USD 1200 and also the development of public charging stations is muchless expensive than a hydrogen refueling station (although a charging stationsupports fewer cars than a HRS). However,in the long term investing on FCVs is more cost efficient as the cost of hydrogen refueling structuredevelopment for FCVs is comparable to the developmentof charging infrastructure for BEVs and PHEVs if the cost needed for the upgrade of electricity system is excluded 6. This meansthat considering the cost of charging infrastructure, the cost for developingthe charging infrastructure for BEVs and PHEVs may even be higher than hydrogenrefueling structure development for FCVs.

 It should be noted that in long-term, market mechanismwill play the first role so for the subsidies should cover all technologies asthey are only efficient in the short-term 11.So although FCVs can reduce the cost of decarburization in the future, theirdevelopment will be negligible if regulations towards its supportare not available 11.From all of this, we concludethat, although FCVs are more expensive right now, they can play a critical rolein the future transportation mix. At the same time, BEVs, PHEVs, and FCVs are compelemantarytechnologies not only in their cost-efficiency based on car size, but alsobased on energy supply management and transition to emission-freetransportation.  As a result, all these technologies should be subsidized considering their dependency onincentives for deployment and advantages/disadvantages.

 ConclusionReviewing theincentives allocated for EV purchase and charging/refueling infrastructuredevelopment shows that the former subsidy is in the form of direct payment tothe customer while the latter can be bothin forms of direct payment to investor and also collaborative investment and managementbetween the private investor andlocal/national institutions. Investigated countries/jurisdictions tend tosupport BEV and FCV purchase based on two methods: subsidy based on vehicleemission (which is in favor of BEVs) and higher subsidy for FCVs compared toBEVs. One reason for countries/jurisdictions that have provided higher purchasesubsidies to FCVs compared to BEVs is the plan to widespread use of hydrogen inthe whole energy system. However, regardless of the method of incentivizing,BEVs and PHEVs are more prevalent technologies in all countries/jurisdictionscompare to FCVs.