CHAPTER-1

INTRODUCTION

India today is one of the top ten automotive markets in the world and given its burgeoning
middle class population with buying potential and the steady economic growth, accelerating
automotive sales is expected to continue. In the last couple of years, there has been a lot of
discussion around the prices of fuel – apart from the deregulation of petrol prices. Moreover the
threat of disruption of supplies from the Middle-East has heightened the debate on energy
security and brought the focus on to alternate drive train technologies.

The potential for alternative technologies in automobiles such as electric vehicles (EV) in India,
as in the case of many other comparable markets, depends on improved battery technologies,
driving ranges, government incentives, regulations, lower prices and better charging
infrastructure.

There seems to be a lot of interest on the part of Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) based
manufacturers to adopt electric technology, not just supplemental to the ICE, but as a stand-alone
offering. There are also specialized EV manufacturers that have come up all over the world.

While many of the factors that influence the EV market are understood intellectually, we carried
out a consumer survey to study perceptions and expectations of potential for alternative
technologies in automobiles such as electric vehicles (EV) and hybrid EV.

Assessing future demand for electric vehicles was somewhat challenging since it meant testing
consumer preferences for a product with which they are largely unfamiliar. For this reason, we
focused on uncovering consumers‘ familiarity with EV technologies and products; with their
opinions around price, brand, range, charging, the infrastructure, and the cost of ownership; and
with the consumer‘s imagined ―fit‖ of an EV in his or her lifestyle given a range of
demographic parameters.
Automotive Industry in India
The automotive industry in India is one of the larger markets in the world and had previously
been one of the fastest growing globally, but is now seeing flat or negative growth rates. India's
passenger car and commercial vehicle manufacturing industry is the sixth largest in the world,
with an annual production of more than 3.9 million units in 2011.
Chennai is home to around 35-40% of India's total automobile industry and for this reason it is
known as the Detroit of Asia. It is on the way to becoming the world's largest Auto hub by 2016
with a capacity of over 3 million cars annually.
The majority of India's car manufacturing industry is based around three clusters in the south,
west and north. The southern cluster consisting of Chennai is the biggest with 35% of the
revenue share. The western hub near Mumbai and Pune contributes to 33% of the market and the
northern cluster around the National Capital Region contributes 32%. Chennai, with the India
operations of Ford, Hyundai, Renault, Mitsubishi, Nissan, BMW, Hindustan Motors, Daimler
Chennai accounts for 60% of the country's automotive exports. Gurgaon and Manesar in
Haryana form the northern cluster where the country's largest car manufacturer, Maruti Suzuki,
is based. The Chakan corridor near Pune, Maharashtra is the western cluster with companies like
General Motors, Volkswagen, Skoda, Mahindra and Mahindra, Tata Motors, Mercedes Benz,
Land Rover, Jaguar Cars, Fiat and Force Motors having assembly plants in the area. Nashik has a
major base of Mahindra & Mahindra with a UV assembly unit and an Engine assembly unit.
Aurangabad with Audi, Skoda and Volkswagen also forms part of the western cluster. Another
emerging cluster is in the state of Gujarat with manufacturing facility of General Motors in Halol
and further planned for Tata Nano at their plant in Sanand. Ford, Maruti Suzuki and Peugeot-
Citroen plants are also set to come up in Gujarat. Kolkata with Hindustan Motors, Noida with
Honda and Bangalore with Toyota are some of the other automotive manufacturing regions
around the country.
India’s automobile industry is the sixth largest in the world and accounts for 22% of the
country’s total manufacturing output. In the last decade, India has been growing at a faster rate
on the motorization curve. As a result, urban traffic congestion and the air quality gets affected in
the all major metropolitan cities and town. In India, the transport sector alone contributed around
18% in terms of carbon emission. Indian government is trying to move to alternative fuel based
vehicle technology. The Electric Vehicle (EV) is one of the most feasible alternative solutions to
overcome the crises. Several automotive companies are slowly venturing into the EV space and
are expanding their portfolio. Promoting Electric vehicles through innovative ways can help
reduce fossil fuel dependence and pollution, and prove to be beneficial for both consumers and
the nation in the long run. Electric vehicles can have a significant impact on the reduction of
greenhouse and pollutant gas emissions associated to the transportation sector. The awareness
about new products among the consumers has an impact on their behavior in the long term. The
consumers with knowledge about products develop an attitude towards specific products. In this
paper the awareness about environmental-friendly cars among automobile involvement
consumers is discussed.
The media features abundant communication on electric vehicles (EVs) and their potential role
for a sustainable transport system. Although still some technical issues revolve around the
market introduction of EVs, it seems to be one of the most realistic options to be available for
consumers in the showroom very soon. Electricity companies are meanwhile also busy with
figuring out the best configuration for an EV recharging infrastructure, serving an expected
numbers of customers over the next years. In order to reach the full benefits of EVs from an
environmental and economic perspective, they are also foreseen to take over a special role in our
future electricity system, e.g. as peak buffer and storage for intermittent energy sources. While
this new role potentially requires quite some intervention on people’s daily routines and
behaviour regarding individual transport, it can also result in serious constraints regarding the
actual vehicle usage. It is virtually unknown how the consumer would respond to such
interventions from the charging infrastructure operator. This report presents new research results
regarding the acceptance of this new vehicle functions and connected charging schemes.
There are many categories and factors influencing the societal acceptance of electric vehicles.
These include factors from technical categories (e.g. driving range and performance of a vehicle,
charging infrastructure, competing technologies), financial ones (e.g. purchasing costs and fuel
prices), demographic and geographic (e.g. gender, urban vs rural, parking availability, climate),
political (e.g. existing policies, taxes and subsidies) and cultural/social categories. This last
category contains again many different subcategories ranging from person-related aspects as
willingness to pay, environmental awareness, current driving behaviour, personal perceptions etc
to broader society-related aspects like prevailing norms and values related to transport and
mobility and public opinion general image of EVs. Some of these social factors have an origin in
one of the other categories (e.g. perceptions on vehicle performance or trust in continuity of
policies). Although (a variation of) this categorisation is often used in research and practices
related to societal acceptance (e.g. Heiskanen, et al., 2008), another categorisation was used in
this study.
The Grid Vehicles project focuses on the effects of a large-scale rollout of electric vehicles on
the electricity grid. It was therefore chosen not to focus on all aspects influencing the acceptance
of electric vehicles in this study, but to focus on those that would have a direct impact on the
grid. This includes the factors related to vehicle use, but especially those related to the charging
process of electric vehicles. Factors more related to the general acceptance or purchase of
electric vehicles are thus not taken into account. A more detailed analysis of first user typology
and motives to purchase electric vehicles was carried out in France based on interviews. France
also had a large EV RD&D programme in the 1990s facilitated by Electricité de France (Magali
et al, 2009).
Within the category of charging related factors another focus is put on those factors that are user
dependent. This means that vehicle or infrastructure dependent factors (like battery lifetime and
duration of charging) are less focussed on. Between the categories of aspects influencing the
acceptance of electric vehicles used and purchase related factors and technical and user related
factors, some grey areas of overap exist.

Approach
Electric vehicles in the form of passenger cars are not widely available yet. Apart from some
participants in demonstration projects, many potential users of electric vehicles have never even
seen an electric vehicle, and definitely not driven or charged one. People are thus also not
familiar with the characteristics of these vehicles either. This limits to a large extent research on
some factors related to the acceptance of electric cars, especially those related to use (and
charging) preferences. In such cases it is often advised to base predictions of future behaviour on
current or past behaviour of people (Oulette and Wood, 1998).
The big differences between the refuelling of conventional and the recharging of electrical cars
in terms of price and duration and other vehicle characteristics, e.g. driving range, however,
makes current behaviour a poor predictor of future electric car charging behaviour. Research on
user (and charging) behaviour of electric cars therefore has to be based on the preferred
behaviour potential users foresee. This is a challenge in itself, because a person would have to
take many factors of not only the electric car, but also their own behaviour and the context of
recharging infrastructure into account which at present are unknown to them. Current predictions
of behaviour and preferences will be far from perfect. However, by presenting respondents with
several options, their choices will give insight into their general preferences and how they value
different aspects of the options. For example, it is hard to say whether respondents who indicate
they will charge their car at home will in reality do so. Nevertheless asking people where they
would prefer to charge gives an indication of their preference in the ideal situation when they
could charge exactly where they want. Similarly, it is impossible to predict how much of the
public will actually join Particulars charging schemes offered to them. It is, however, possible to
explore their perceptions about and interest in it and reveal general interest or aversion to
different options. By presenting different charging options the differences found between how
these are evaluated will give an indication of how the different aspects are weighted.
To accommodate the challenge of asking respondents about a topic which they are inexperienced
with, several measures were taken. First of all, respondents received short information about the
relevant topic, such as general information about electric cars, charging and capacity
characteristics of electric cars and different charging options available. Secondly, respondents
were asked for their interest and preference. Thirdly, the options and some associated factors
such as price were kept as clear and simple as possible. Monetary incentives were for instance
not intended to establish the exact level at which respondents choose for different options, but to
explore the role any incentive would pay in their deliberation and how they weigh it against other
factors, such as for instance control over their own charging.

Electric vehicle and Hybrid vehicle (xEV) industry

During April 2012 Indian Government has planned to unveil the roadmap for the development of
the domestic electric and hybrid vehicles (xEV) in the country. A discussion between the various
stakeholders including Government, industry and the academia is expected to take place during
23–24 February. The final contours of the policy will be formed after this set of discussions.
Ministries such as Petroleum, Finance, Road Transport and Power are involved in developing a
broad framework for the sector. Along with these ministries big auto industry names such as Mr
Anand Mahindra (Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Mahindra & Mahindra) and Mr
Vikram Kirloskar (Vice-Chairman, Toyota Kirloskar) are also involved in this task. Government
has also proposed to set up a Rs 740 crore R&D fund for the sector in the 12th five year plan
during 2012-17. The idea is to reduce the high cost of key imported components such as the
battery and electric motor and develop such capabilities locally.

Electric car manufacturers in India

-Ajanta Group
-Hero Electric (Yo Bikes)
-Mahindra REVA
-Tara International
-Tata (Indica Vista)
-Chevrolet (Beat)

Manufacturing Facilities
Passenger Vehicles
 General Motors India Private Limited
 Chevrolet Sales India Private Limited – Halol
 Maruti Suzuki – Gurgaon, Manesar
 Mahindra REVA Electric Vehicles – Bangalore
 Toyota Kirloskar Motor Private Limited – Bidadi
 Ssangyong Motor Company – Chakan
 Tata Motors Limited
o Tata Motors – Pimpri Chinchwad, Sanand
o Jaguar Cars and Land Rover – Pune
 Mercedes-Benz Passenger Cars – Chakan
 Fiat Automobiles – Ranjangaon Pune
 Volkswagen Group Sales India Private Limited
o Volkswagen – Chakan
o Audi AG – Aurangabad
o Škoda Auto – Aurangabad
 Chinkara Motors – Karlekhind Alibag
 Premier Automobiles Limited – Pimpri Chinchwad
 Honda Siel Cars India – Tapukara
 BMW India – Chennai
 Ford India Private Limited – Maraimalai Nagar
 Hyundai Motor India Limited – Sriperumbudur
 Mitsubishi – Tiruvallur
 Renault Nissan Automotive India Private Limited
o Nissan Motor India Private Limited – Oragadam
o Renault India Private Limited – Oragadam

Two wheelers
 Hero MotoCorp – Dharuhera, Gurgaon
 India Yamaha Motor – Faridabad
 Honda – Manesar
 Suzuki – Gurgaon
 TVS Motors – Nalagarh, Mysore
 Mahindra & Mahindra – Pithampur
 Bajaj Auto – Waluj Aurangabad, Chakan
 KTM Sportmotorcycles – Chakan
 Vespa Scooters – Baramati Pune
 Kinetic Engineering – Ahmednagar, Pune
 Royal Enfield – Chennai
 India Yamaha Motor – Greater Noida

Commercial Vehicles

 TAFE Tractors – Parwanoo

 Tata Motors – Jamshedpur
 Volvo Buses India Private Limited – Hoskote
 Force Motors Private Limited – Pithampur
 Eicher Motors – Pithampur
 MAN Trucks India – Akurdi Pune
 Mercedes-Benz Buses India – Chakan
 Piaggio Vehicles – Baramati Pune
  Ashok Leyland – Ennore, Hosur

About Electric Vehicles

During the last few decades, environmental impact of the petroleum-based transportation
infrastructure, along with the peak oil, has led to renewed interest in an electric transportation
infrastructure. Electric vehicles differ from fossil fuel-powered vehicles in that the electricity
they consume can be generated from a wide range of sources, including fossil fuels, nuclear
power, and renewable sources such as tidal power, solar power, and wind power or any
combination of those.
An electric vehicle (EV), also referred to as an electric drive vehicle, uses one or more electric
motors or traction motors for propulsion. Three main types of electric vehicles exist, those that
are directly powered from an external power station, those that are powered by stored electricity
originally from an external power source, and those that are powered by an on-board electrical
generator, such as an internal combustion engine (a hybrid electric vehicle) or a hydrogen fuel
cell. Electric vehicles include electric cars, electric trains, electric lorries, electric aeroplanes,
electric boats, electric motorcycles and scooters and electric spacecraft. Proposals exist for
electric tanks, diesel submarines operating on battery power are, for the duration of the battery
run, electric submarines, and some of the lighter UAVs are electrically-powered.
Electric vehicles first came into existence in the mid-19th century, when electricity was among
the preferred methods for motor vehicle propulsion, providing a level of comfort and ease of
operation that could not be achieved by the gasoline cars of the time. The internal combustion
engine (ICE) is the dominant propulsion method for motor vehicles but electric power has
remained commonplace in other vehicle types, such as trains and smaller vehicles of all types.
A hybrid electric vehicle combines a conventional (usually fossil fuel-powered) powertrain with
some form of electric propulsion. Common examples include hybrid electric cars such as the
Toyota Prius. The Chevrolet Volt is an example of a production Extended Range Plug-In Electric
Vehicle.

Electric motor
The power of a vehicle electric motor, as in other vehicles, is measured in kilowatts (kW). 100
kW is roughly equivalent to 134 horsepower, although most electric motors deliver full torque
over a wide RPM range, so the performance is not equivalent, and far exceeds a 134 horsepower
(100 kW) fuel-powered motor, which has a limited torque curve.
Usually, direct current (DC) electricity is fed into a DC/AC inverter where it is converted to
alternating current (AC) electricity and this AC electricity is connected to a 3-phase AC motor.
For electric trains, DC motors are often used.

Electromagnetic radiation
Electromagnetic radiation from high performance electrical motors has been claimed to be
associated with some human ailments, but such claims are largely unsubstantiated except for
extremely high exposures. Electric motors can be shielded within a metallic Faraday cage, but
this reduces efficiency by adding weight to the vehicle, while it is not conclusive that all
electromagnetic radiation can be contained.

Mechanical
Electric motors are mechanically very simple. Electric motors often achieve 90% energy
conversion efficiency over the full range of speeds and power output and can be precisely
controlled. They can also be combined with regenerative braking systems that have the ability to
convert movement energy back into stored electricity. This can be used to reduce the wear on
brake systems (and consequent brake pad dust) and reduce the total energy requirement of a trip.
Regenerative braking is especially effective for start-and-stop city use.

They can be finely controlled and provide high torque from rest, unlike internal combustion
engines, and do not need multiple gears to match power curves. This removes the need for
gearboxes and torque converters.

Electric vehicles provide quiet and smooth operation and consequently have less noise and
vibration than internal combustion engines. While this is a desirable attribute, it has also evoked
concern that the absence of the usual sounds of an approaching vehicle poses a danger to blind,
elderly and very young pedestrians. To mitigate this situation, automakers and individual
companies are developing systems that produce warning sounds when electric vehicles are
moving slowly, up to a speed when normal motion and rotation (road, suspension, electric motor,
etc.) noises become audible.

Energy efficiency
Electric vehicle 'tank-to-wheels' efficiency is about a factor of 3 higher than internal combustion
engine vehicles. Energy is not consumed while the vehicle is stationary, unlike internal
combustion engines which consume fuel while idling. However, looking at the well-to-wheel
efficiency of electric vehicles, their total emissions, while still lower, are closer to an efficient
gasoline or diesel in most countries where electricity generation relies on fossil fuels.

It is worth noting that well-to-wheel efficiency of an electric vehicle has far less to do with the
vehicle itself and more to do with the method of electricity production. A Particulars electric
vehicle would instantly become twice as efficient if electricity production were switched from
fossil fuel to a wind or tidal primary source of energy. Thus when "well-to-wheels" is cited, one
should keep in mind that the discussion is no longer about the vehicle, but rather about the entire
energy supply infrastructure - in the case of fossil fuels this should also include energy spent on
exploration, mining, refining, and distribution.

Types of Batteries
Previously banks of conventional lead-acid car batteries were commonly used for EV propulsion.
Then later the 75 watt-hour/kilogram lithium ion polymer battery prototypes came. The newer
Li-poly cells provide up to 130 watt-hour/kilogram and last through thousands of charging
cycles.

Efficiency
Because of the different methods of charging possible, the emissions produced have been
quantified in different ways. Plug-in all-electric and hybrid vehicles also have different
consumption characteristics.

Range
Many electric designs have limited range, due to the low energy density of batteries compared to
the fuel of internal combustion engined vehicles. Electric vehicles also often have long recharge
times compared to the relatively fast process of refuelling a tank. This is further complicated by
the current scarcity of public charging stations. "Range anxiety" is a label for consumer concern
about EV range.

Charging

Grid capacity: If a large proportion of private vehicles were to convert to grid electricity it
would increase the demand for generation and transmission, and consequent emissions.
However, overall energy consumption and emissions would diminish because of the higher
efficiency of electric vehicles over the entire cycle.
Stabilization of the grid: Since electric vehicles can be plugged into the electric grid when not
in use, there is a potential for battery powered vehicles to even out the demand for electricity by
feeding electricity into the grid from their batteries during peak use periods (such as mid-
afternoon air conditioning use) while doing most of their charging at night, when there is unused
generating capacity. This vehicle-to-grid (V2G) connection has the potential to reduce the need
for new power plants, as long as vehicle owners do not mind their batteries being drained during
the day by the power company prior to needing to use their vehicle for a return-commute home
in the evening.

Furthermore, our current electricity infrastructure may need to cope with increasing shares of
variable-output power sources such as windmills and PV solar panels. This variability could be
addressed by adjusting the speed at which EV batteries are charged, or possibly even discharged.

Some concepts see battery exchanges and battery charging stations, much like gas/petrol stations
today. Clearly these will require enormous storage and charging potentials, which could be
manipulated to vary the rate of charging, and to output power during shortage periods, much as
diesel generators are used for short periods to stabilize some national grids.

Heating of electric vehicles: In cold climates, considerable energy is needed to heat the interior
of a vehicle and to defrost the windows. With internal combustion engines, this heat already
exists as waste combustion heat diverted from the engine cooling circuit. This process offsets the
greenhouse gases external costs. If this is done with battery electric vehicles, the interior heating
requires extra energy from the vehicles batteries. Although some heat could be harvested from
the motor(s) and battery, their greater efficiency means there is not as much waste heat available
as from a combustion engine.

However, for vehicles which are connected to the grid, battery electric vehicles can be preheated,
or cooled, with little or no need for battery energy, especially for short trips.

Newer designs are focused on using super-insulated cabins which can heat the vehicle using the
body heat of the passengers. This is not enough, however, in colder climates as a driver delivers
only about 100 W of heating power. A reversible AC-system, cooling the cabin during summer
and heating it during winter, seems to be the most practical and promising way of solving the
thermal management of the EV. Ricardo Arboix introduced (2008) a new concept based on the
principle of combining the thermal-management of the EV-battery with the thermal-management
of the cabin using a reversible AC-system. This is done by adding a third heat-exchanger,
thermally connected with the battery-core, to the traditional heat pump/air conditioning system
used in previous EVmodels like the GM EV1 and Toyota RAV4 EV. The concept has proven to
bring several benefits, such as prolonging the life-span of the battery as well as improving the
performance and overall energy-efficiency of the EV.

About Hybrid Electric Vehicle

A hybrid electric vehicle combines a conventional (usually fossil fuel-powered) powertrain with
some form of electric propulsion. Common examples include hybrid electric cars such as the
Toyota Prius. The Chevrolet Volt is an example of a production Extended Range Plug-In Electric
Vehicle. Mopeds, electric bicycles, and even electric kick scooters are a simple form of a hybrid,
as power is delivered both via an internal combustion engine or electric motor and the rider's
muscles. Early prototypes of motorcycles in the late 19th century used the same principles.

 In a parallel hybrid bicycle human and motor power are mechanically coupled at the pedal
drive train or at the rear or the front wheel, e.g. using a hub motor, a roller pressing onto a
 tire, or a connection to a wheel using a transmission element. Human and motor torques are
added together. Almost all manufactured models are of this type. See Motorized bicycles,
Mopeds and for more information.
 In a series hybrid bicycle (SH) the user powers a generator using the pedals. This is
converted into electricity and can be fed directly to the motor giving a chainless bicycle but
also to charge a battery. The motor draws power from the battery and must be able to deliver
the full mechanical torque required because none is available from the pedals. SH bicycles
are commercially available, because they are very simple in theory and manufacturing.

Hybrid fuel (dual mode)

Ford Escape Hybrid the first hybrid electric vehicle with a flexible fuel capability to run on
E85(ethanol).
In addition to vehicles that use two or more different devices for propulsion, some also consider
vehicles that use distinct energy sources or input types ("fuels") using the same engine to be
hybrids, although to avoid confusion with hybrids as described above and to use correctly the
terms, these are perhaps more correctly described as dual mode vehicles:

Some electric trolleybuses can switch between an on board diesel engine and overhead electrical
power depending on conditions (see dual mode bus). In principle, this could be combined with a
battery subsystem to create a true plug-in hybrid trolleybus, although as of 2006, no such design
seems to have been announced.
Flexible-fuel vehicles can use a mixture of input fuels mixed in one tank — typically gasoline
and ethanol, or methanol, or biobutanol.
Bi-fuel vehicle: Liquified petroleum gas and natural gas are very different from petroleum or
diesel and cannot be used in the same tanks, so it would be impossible to build an (LPG or NG)
flexible fuel system. Instead vehicles are built with two, parallel, fuel systems feeding one
engine. While the duplicated tanks cost space in some applications, the increased range and
flexibility where (LPG or NG) infrastructure is incomplete may be a significant incentive to
purchase.
Some vehicles have been modified to use another fuel source if it is available, such as cars
modified to run on autogas (LPG) and diesels modified to run on waste vegetable oil that has not
been processed into biodiesel.
Power-assist mechanisms for bicycles and other human-powered vehicles are also included.

Parallel hybrid

In a parallel hybrid vehicle, the single electric motor and the internal combustion engine are
installed such that they can power the vehicle either individually or together. In contrast to the
power split configuration typically only one electric motor is installed. Most commonly the
internal combustion engine, the electric motor and gear box are coupled by automatically
controlled clutches.
For electric driving the clutch between the internal combustion engine is open while the clutch to
the gear box is engaged. While in combustion mode the engine and motor run at the same speed.

Mild parallel hybrid

These types use a generally compact electric motor (usually <20 kW) to provide autostop/start
features and to provide extra power assist during the acceleration, and to generate on the
deceleration phase (aka regenerative braking).
On-road examples include Honda Civic Hybrid, Honda Insight, Honda CR-Z, Honda Accord
Hybrid, Mercedes Benz S400 Blue-HYBRID, BMW 7-Series hybrids, General Motors BAS
Hybrids and Smart-for-two with micro hybrid drive.

Power-split or series-parallel hybrid

Typical passenger car installations include the Toyota Prius, the Ford Escape, Ford Fusion, the
Lexus RX400h, RX450h, GS450h, LS600h and CT200h.
In a power-split hybrid electric drive train there are two motors: an electric motor and an internal
combustion engine. The power from these two motors can be shared to drive the wheels via a
power splitter, which is a simple planetary gear set. The ratio can be from 0–100% for the
combustion engine, or 0–100% for the electric motor, or anything in between, such as 40% for
the electric motor and 60% for the combustion engine. The electric motor can act as a generator
charging the batteries.
Modern versions such as the Toyota Hybrid Synergy Drive have a second electric
motor/generator on the output shaft (connected to the wheels). In cooperation with the "primary"
motor/generator and the mechanical power-split this provides a continuously variable
transmission.
On the open road, the primary power source is the internal combustion engine. When maximum
power is required, for example to overtake, the electric motor is used to assist. This increases the
available power for a short period, giving the effect of having a larger engine than actually
installed. In most applications, the engine is switched off when the car is slow or stationary
reducing curbside emissions.

Fuel consumption and emissions reductions

The hybrid vehicle typically achieves greater fuel economy and lower emissions than conventional
internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs), resulting in fewer emissions being generated. These
savings are primarily achieved by three elements of a typical hybrid design:

1. Relying on both the engine and the electric motors for peak power needs, resulting in a
smaller engine sized more for average usage rather than peak power usage. A smaller
engine can have less internal losses and lower weight.
2. Having significant battery storage capacity to store and reuse recaptured energy,
especially in stop-andgo traffic typical of the city driving cycle.
3. Recapturing significant amounts of energy during braking that are normally wasted as
heat. This regenerative braking reduces vehicle speed by converting some of its kinetic
energy into electricity, depending upon the power rating of the motor/generator;
Environmental Impact of Electric and Hybrid Vehicle
Environmental impact of electric vehicles
Due to efficiency of electric engines as compared to combustion engines, even when the
electricity used to charge electric vehicles comes from a CO2-emitting source, such as a coal- or
gasfired powered plant, the net CO2 production from an electric car is typically one-half to one-
third of that from a comparable combustion vehicle.
Electric vehicles release almost no air pollutants at the place where they are operated. In
addition, it is generally easier to build pollution-control systems into centralised power stations
than retrofit enormous numbers of cars.
Electric vehicles typically have less noise pollution than an internal combustion engine vehicle,
whether it is at rest or in motion. Electric vehicles emit no tailpipe CO 2 or pollutants such as
NOx, NMHC, CO and PM at the point of use.
Electric motors don't require oxygen, unlike internal combustion engines; this is useful for
submarines. While electric and hybrid cars have reduced tailpipe carbon emissions, the energy
they consume is sometimes produced by means that have environmental impacts. For example,
the majority of electricity produced in the United States comes from fossil fuels (coal and natural
gas), so use of an electric vehicle in the United States would not be completely carbon neutral.
Electric and hybrid cars can help decrease energy use and pollution, with local no pollution at all
being generated by electric vehicles, and may someday use only renewable resources, but the
choice that would have the lowest negative environmental impact would be a lifestyle change in
favour of walking, biking, use of public transit or telecommuting. Governments may invest in
research and development of electric cars with the intention of reducing the impact on the
environment, where they could instead develop pedestrian-friendly communities or electric mass
transit.

Environmental impact of hybrid car battery

Though hybrid cars consume less fuel than conventional cars, there is still an issue regarding the
environmental damage of the hybrid car battery. Today most hybrid car batteries are one of two
types: 1) Nickel metal hydride, or 2) Lithium ion; both are regarded as more environmentally
friendly than lead-based batteries which constitute the bulk of petro car starter batteries today.
There are many types of batteries. Some are far more toxic than others. Lithium ion is the least
toxic of the three mentioned above.

The toxicity levels and environmental impact of nickel metal hydride batteries—the type
currently used in hybrids—are much lower than batteries like lead acid or nickel cadmium.
However, nickel-based batteries are known carcinogens, and have been shown to cause a variety
of teratogenic effects.
The Lithium-ion battery has attracted attention due to its potential for use in hybrid electric
vehicles. Hitachi is a leader in its development. In addition to its smaller size and lighter weight,
lithium-ion batteries deliver performance that helps to protect the environment with features such
as improved charge efficiency without memory effect. The lithium-ion batteries are appealing
because they have the highest energy density of any rechargeable batteries and can produce a
voltage more than three times that of nickel–metal hydride battery cell while simultaneously
storing large quantities of electricity as well. The batteries also produce higher output (boosting
vehicle power), higher efficiency (avoiding wasteful use of electricity), and provides excellent
durability, compared with the life of the battery being roughly equivalent to the life of the
vehicle. Additionally, use of lithium-ion batteries reduces the overall weight of the vehicle and
also achieves improved fuel economy of 30% better than petro-powered vehicles with a
consequent reduction in CO2 emissions helping to prevent global warming.

Raw materials increasing costs

There is an impending increase in the costs of many rare materials used in the manufacture of
hybrid cars. For example, the rare earth element dysprosium is required to fabricate many of the
advanced electric motors and battery systems in hybrid propulsion systems. Neodymium is
another rare earth metal which is a crucial ingredient in high-strength magnets that are found in
permanent magnet electric motors.
Nearly all the rare earth elements in the world come from China, and many analysts believe that
an overall increase in Chinese electronics manufacturing will consume this entire supply by
2012. In addition, export quotas on Chinese rare earth elements have resulted in an unknown
amount of supply.
A few non-Chinese sources such as the advanced Hoidas Lake project in northern Canada as
well as Mount Weld in Australia are currently under development; however, the barriers to entry
are high and require years to go online.

Some Articles from DWS Auto Blog

“Do hybrids really reduce running costs and give better fuel efficiency?”
Hybrid cars are a likely future direction that cars in India will take now that the Government is
considering norms for hybrid cars in India. At the moment, there is only the Toyota Prius that’s
on sale India at a price point of Rs. 30 lakh that is a true hybrid.

Recently, the Government said it is considering framing norms to convert existing petrol and
diesel cars to petrol-electric and diesel-electric hybrid vehicles. This would achieve two things –
one, lower pollution levels in congested cities and two, increase in fuel economy would
technically mean savings for the car buyer.

How much do you save driving a hybrid?

But by how much do hybrid cars really improve fuel economy and are there any considerable
savings when it comes to long-term running costs? That‘s something to ponder about.

Although these two cars are not strictly comparable, let‘s for a moment put them together to
compare notes – given that both cars are imports. Let‘s see how a Toyota Prius compares with
entry-level Audi A4 1.8 petrol, both priced around Rs. 29 lakh.

The Toyota Prius is powered by a 1.8 litre petrol engine that puts out 98 bhp of power, coupled
with a 35 bhp electric motor, making the car good for a total power output of 134 bhp. The Prius
―hybrid synergy drives system can power the car on only the electric motor, only the petrol
motor or both together depending on the driving conditions. For city speeds up to a range of
about 30 km, the car can drive on electric power alone. When speeds go above 40 kmph, the
petrol motor kicks in, and when peak acceleration is required the car uses both motors for
maximum power.
It is because of this hybrid combination that despite good performance, the car gives a
phenomenal mileage of 22 kmpl in the city.

Now, look at a regular petrol sedan like the Audi A4 with a 1.8 litre motor putting out better
performance of 168 bhp. It has better top-end performance no doubt, but when it comes to
pollution levels at slow city speeds and on fuel economy the Audi A4 loses out, as the petrol
motor is always running, while the Prius can run on electric power alone as needed. The Audi A4
has a fuel-efficiency rating of 13 kmpl, giving only about 11 kmpl in the city, half that of the
Prius.

Long-term running costs are more expensive

So straight away, running costs should be half right? Not quite. The Prius uses far more
technology and hence has expensive maintenance. Also the battery packs in the Prius need
replacing after a few years, which would cost at least Rs. 2.5 lakh to replace. And that negates all
the savings on fuel cost that one would have saved because of better overall fuel efficiency.
However, the reason to buy a hybrid is not just running cost or fuel cost – it is more to do with
the environment. With a hybrid you pollute just half as much as you would with a regular petrol
engine, not to mention consuming less fuel, which in its own way goes to saving the planet.
That‘s one of the reason celebrities have been lapping up hybrids like the Prius – it gives to
bragging rights about caring for the environment.

Petrol-electric hybrid vs CNG conversion: Pros and cons

The government recently said it is framing norms to convert petrol and diesel cars to petrol-
electric or diesel-electric hybrids. And one company, Revolo, is ready with a kit that can be
retrofitted in any petrol or diesel car, but costs about Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 80,000.
During the Auto Expo we came across some interesting gizmos, and one of them was the Revolo
hybrid solution, that promised to turn any car, petrol or diesel, into an electric hybrid.

About Revolvo
Revolo is a plug-in parallel hybrid technology that can be retrofitted in both existing and new
cars.
This technology has been designed and engineered by KPIT Cummins and the product will be
manufactured through a joint venture (JV) of Rs. 100 crore (initial) between Bharat Forge Ltd
and KPIT Cummins. As part of the joint venture, KPIT Cummins will license the hybrid
technology while Bharat Forge will provide manufacturing, assembly & integration to the JV.
The idea of Revolo first occurred to a young KPIT Cummins engineer Tejas Khsatriya in
2008when he was stuck in Mumbai traffic en route to Pune.

KPIT Cummins sanctioned a team of four engineers for the project, which was kept separate
from CREST, the research and development centre at KPIT Cummins. It took 2 years of research
and a budget under USD 2 million to evolve the idea through trial and error and several failures,
including the inability of the system to withstand sudden surge in power when breaks were
applied.

The research and development team studied the firing pattern of internal combustion engines and
identified the weak spots that lead to fuel wastage and finally created a technology that can
convert a passenger car to a hybrid that is environmentally friendly, cheap, fuel-efficient and at
the same time offers good performance.

Revolo is designed to work in typical stop-and-go city traffic and allows cars to cruise at about
30 km/h in the third gear without straining the engine.
Latest Developments: KPIT Cummins continues the road tests of pilot vehicles as well as
consumer trials with results so far having validated the pre-announced performance results. The
team has further reduced the overall weight of the solution, improved on the durability and
standardized many components across multiple vehicle platforms. Construction at the assembly
and manufacturing plants continues. It is expected to be operational by July 2011.
The company will test various vehicles, including passenger cars, with engines sizes between
800 cc and 2,500 cc.

Production of limited hybrid kits is planned to start by first half of 2011-12. The commercial
production would begin in 2012-13.
Intrigued? We were too and decided to check out how the system works. The Revolo system,
from KPIT Cummins, is a parallel hybrid solution. What it does is connect an electric motor in
parallel with your engine. The electric motor runs off a stack of batteries that are charged by
plugging into a household electric socket. The motor provides ―boost‖ to the regular petrol or
diesel engine, reducing the effort of the engine. In effect, it claims to increase ―in-city‖ mileage
by about 35% (and this is apparently ARAI certified).
Now, if you look at CNG cars (which are essentially dual-fuel hybrids running on either petrol or
CNG), the cost of converting a petrol car to a CNG car works out to almost the same as that of
converting a petrol car to a petrol-electric hybrid.

Which one of these systems should you pick? We take a look at the pros and cons of both,
comparing a Maruti Alto fitted with the Revolo hybrid system and one fitted with a sequential
CNG system. Revolo petrol-electric system

The petrol-electric hybrid system from Revolo (a KPIT Cummins offering) uses an electric
motor coupled with the petrol engine through a drive-belt connected to the crankshaft pulley.
The electric motor draws power from a battery pack (two 12V batteries) in the boot or from a
single Lithiumion battery. This battery pack can be charged overnight from a standard household
socket and it also gets recharged when the car is moving – especially during braking.

Pros of the petrol-electric system

Revolo claims an additional fuel efficiency of 35% compared to a regular petrol Alto in the city.
Given the city mileage of about 17 kmpl for a regular Alto one can get about 23 kmpl using this
system. This would result in savings of up to 30% on fuel bills per year. Running costs would
come down by 30% overall, given that electricity to charge the system is nearly 1/10th the cost.
Also the system is quite compact and does not take up as much space as a CNG system would –
there is no big cylinder in the boot as the battery pack is small and can be fitted in one corner of
the boot saving space.
The system, once fully charged, can run much longer than a CNG system would as it also gets
trickle charged during the day when the car is running.
Cons of the Petrol-Electric System
The cost projection for installing such a system of between Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 80,000 is fairly
high.
They need to drive over 2000 km a month to realize the benefits of the system. With this kind of
driving you would save about Rs 2,100 per month, making the system pay for itself by the third
year of use. However, in the fourth year, expect your savings to drop considerably, as you would
need to spend about Rs. 14,000 on new batteries. And this is a recurring cost every three to four
years.

CNG-petrol dual fuel systems

With a CNG conversion, the car can run on natural gas or petrol. Running it on CNG often gives
slightly better fuel efficiency – in the case of the Alto about 22 km per Kg of CNG. With CNG
prices at about Rs. 40 per Kg, it is nearly Rs. 30 cheaper than petrol per litre.

Pros of a CNG system

CNG conversion allows for pure CNG driving, without a drop of petrol being burned unlike the
petrol-electric system, where you only get a boost from the electric motor, but are still
consuming petrol. Therefore the savings (given the cost difference with petrol) are much higher.
You realize the investment in CNG much faster than you would with a petrol electric system.

CNG filling networks are quite widespread in about 35 cities now, which means much easier
access to gas. Electric charging points are not easily accessible unless you have a garage or easy
access to a plug point. It also takes about 5 minutes to tank up on CNG, while it takes about 8
hours for a fullcharge of the batteries.
Cons of a CNG system
The size of the CNG tank takes up almost the entire boot in an Alto, leaving no space for
luggage. It also is substantially heavier and takes its toll on the suspension of the car. When one
travels out of town this becomes an issue as CNG networks don‘t exist outside of major cities,
forcing the driver to drive on petrol and negate any savings.

CONSUMER DEMAND FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLES

Whilst EVs remain a niche market application, research examining consumer demand for EVs
has been an active area of enquiry for the past thirty years. Research was initiated in the early
1980s due to the occurrence of the 1970s oil shocks and the growing awareness of air quality
issues in some of the major conurbations of California which combined to generate interest in the
possibility of shifting away from ICE vehicles (Sperling and Eggert, 2014). Initial research
tended to approach the assessment of consumer demand using econometric methods, such as
discrete choice modelling based on random utility theory (Train, 2009), which allowed
researchers to quantify the effect of the novel functional features of EVs over consumer
preferences (Mannering and Train, 1985). Research conducted using these methods assisted in
identifying prominent adoption barriers such as aversion to the limited range of EV, the price
premiums associated with EVs and high discount rates for operating costs (Beggs et al., 1981;
Calfee, 1985). These issues corresponded with generally low expectations of the potential market
for EVs (Train, 1980) which have been validated by low sales figures. As anxieties relating to
the stability of oil supplies began to subside and the technical deficiencies associated with the
functional performance of EVs became clearer, interest in understanding the market potential of
EVs declined.

Over the past decade, interest in EVs has resurfaced (Rezvani et al. 2015), mostly due to the
importance placed on this technology in transitioning the transport sector onto a low carbon
trajectory (van Bree et al. 2010; Dijk et al. 2013; Geels, 2012; Stienhilber et al. 2013; Greene et
al. 2014). A significant quantity of forecasting studies have been conducted to assess potential
adoption pathways for EV demand (Karplus et al. 2010; Eggers and Eggers, 2011; Musti and
Kockleman, 2011; Anable et al. 2012; Shepherd et al. 2012). These forecasting studies have
tended to investigate the potential effect of different market developments, such as
improvements to battery technology and reductions in price premiums, alongside the influence of
government incentives. Whilst market forecasting at the system level allows for the effect of
different technical development scenarios and policy mixes to be considered, it provides little
insight regarding how EVs are being evaluated by individual consumers. In an effort to shed
light on this issue, research activity in consumer demand for EVs has progressed through the
application of psychometric models which draw on concepts originating in psychology and
sociology (Lane and Potter, 2007). This is an extension of the increasing application of socio-
psychological methods in order to evaluate the challenge of transitioning towards a sustainable
transport system (Gehlert et al., 2013), with the importance of attitudes (Gärling et al., 1998)
alongside affective and symbolic motives (Steg et al., 2001; Steg, 2005) in explaining travel
behaviour now being well established (van Acker et al., 2010).

In relation to EVs, studies which apply psychological theory comprise a rapidly growing and
already substantial body of literature examining a variety of emotional or non-conscious
regulatory processes, but with only loose consensus as to the factors emerging as most directly or
even indirectly influential on an individual’s adoption intention or behaviour (Anable et al.
2014). The examined factors include relatively rational and linear relationships between
consumer attitudes and their EV adoption intentions (Moons and De Pelsmacker, 2012), more
normative models of behaviour investigating personal norms such as strong moral obligation
towards environmental issues or values (Moons and De Pelsmacker, 2015), as well as those
focusing on indirect and social processes (Axsen et al. 2013) that impinge on behaviour
including symbolic meanings attached to cars (Heffner et al. 2007; Morton et al. 2015; Noppers
et al. 2015), self-identity (Peters et al., 2011a; Barbarossa et al., 2015) and personality (Skippon
and Garwood, 2011). Whilst methodologically and theoretically diverse, these studies
consistently demonstrate the importance of the degree to which EVs are perceived to be
compatible with lifestyle and personal image alongside the relative advantage of operation. For
example, several studies have found that hedonic and symbolic motives are valid predictors of
preferences towards EV variants (Ozaki and Sevastyanova, 2011; Schuitema et al., 2013) and
others have concentrated specifically on how pro-environmental values, beliefs and social norms
assist in explaining the adoption of an alternatively fuelled vehicle (Peters et al., 2011b; Jannson
et al., 2011; Ozaki and Sevastyanova, 2011). Whilst the majority of studies attempting to include
psychological factors in their models of EV adoption behaviour have found these elements to
explain more or at least as much of the variance as functional factors, this is not always the case.
For instance, when comparing adopters of EVs to owners of conventional cars in Norway,
Nayum et al. (2016) found that attitudes towards functional issues such as car performance and
convenience are most useful in distinguishing EV owners vis a vis norms and values.
Whilst existing research has explored some of the psychological antecedents to preferences
towards EVs and has attempted to identify the prominent characteristics of consumers more
inclined to consider the purchase of an EV, little attention has been paid to the fundamental
predisposition of consumers to be attracted to the innovative and unique features of EVs. To this
end, this paper specifically concentrates on the concept of consumer innovativeness in order to
consider if this characteristic is useful in distinguishing consumers who are more likely to adopt
an EV. In this sense, the research presented here responds to a call for a broadening of the factors
included in demand models for EVs in order to more fully account for the diverse range of
aspects which potentially hold influence in this emerging market (Daziano and Chiew, 2012).

CONSUMER INNOVATIVENESS

When new innovations are introduced into a market, they undergo a diffusion process. The
process is illustrated in the Diffusion of Innovation (DOI) theory which postulates that the
adoption of innovations tends to follow a normal temporal distribution, with a small quantity of
innovators and early adopters acquiring the innovation relatively early, followed by the majority
of mainstream consumers with the diffusion process concluded when the laggard consumers
decide to adopt (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971; Rogers, 2003). Central to this theory is the
concept of consumer innovativeness, which can be considered at a general level to represent a
characteristic which relates to an individual’s basic tendency to adopt new innovations.
Electric Vehicle Attitudes
The existing literature covering EV demand has recognized a wide range of issues which have
the potential to affect how consumers form opinions of and preferences towards EVs. Specific
attention has been paid to identifying barriers which are inhibiting EV demand (Egbue and Long,
2012), with the functional characteristics of EVs, such as restricted range and price premiums,
representing prominent issues (Bunch et al., 1993; Eggers and Eggers, 2011, Krupa et al. 2014).
Indeed, in a comprehensive assessment of the psychometric characteristics which can distinguish
EV adopters from mainstream car buyers, Nayum et al. (2016) found that attitudes towards the
functional characteristics of cars proved to be the most effective, indicating that functional
barriers are central concerns. These barriers can be thought of as representing some of the
intervening variables which influence an individual’s receptivity to a Particulars innovation. In
the conceptual framework, attitudes towards EV functional performance have been included as a
component to consider their connection with EV preferences.

Electric Vehicle Preferences

Expressed preferences towards EVs represent the focal point of the conceptual framework. The
framework postulates that these preferences are affected by actualised innovativeness, which
notes the displayed adoption of innovations by an individual, and EV attitudes, which relates to
evaluations of the functional performance of EVs.
TYPES OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES: BEV, PHEV AND HEV

There are three main types of electric vehicles (EVs), classed by the degree that
electricity is used as their energy source. BEVs, or battery electric vehicles, PHEVs of
plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and HEVs, or hybrid electric vehicles. Only BEVs are
capable of charging on a level 3, DC fast charge.

Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV)

Battery Electric Vehicles, also called

BEVs, and more frequently called EVs, are
fully-electric vehicles with rechargeable
batteries and no gasoline engine. Battery
electric vehicles store electricity onboard with high-capacity battery packs. Their
battery power is used to run the electric motor and all onboard electronics. BEVs do
not emit any harmful emissions and hazards caused by traditional gasoline-powered
vehicles. BEVs are charged by electricity from an external source. Electric Vehicle
(EV) chargers are classified according to the speed with which they recharge an EVs
battery.

The classifications are Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 or DC fast charging. Level 1 EV
charging uses a standard household (120v) outlet to plug into the electric vehicle and
takes over 8 hours to charge an EV for approximately 75-80 miles. Level one charging
is typically done at home or at your workplace. Level 1 chargers have the capability to
charge most EVs on the market.

Level 2 charging requires a specialized station which provides power at 240v. Level 2
chargers are typically found at workplaces and public charging stations and will take
about 4 hours to charge a battery to 75-80 miles of range.
Level 3 charging, DC fast charging, or simply fast charging is currently the fastest
charging solution in the EV market. DC fast chargers are found at dedicated EV
charging stations and charge a battery up to 90 miles range in approximately 30
minutes.

BEV Examples that can charge on DC Level 3 Fast Chargers

 BMW i3
 Chevy Bolt
 Chevy Spark
 Nissan LEAF
 Ford Focus Electric
 Hyundai Ioniq
 Karma Revera
 Kia Soul
 Mitsubishi i-MiEV
 Tesla Model S
 Tesla X
 Tesla Model 3
 Toyota Rav4
 Volkswagen e-Golf

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV)

Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles or PHEVs can recharge the

battery through both regenerative braking and “plugging in”
to an external source of electrical power. While “standard”
hybrids can (at low speed) go about 1-2 miles before the
gasoline engine turns on, PHEV models can go anywhere
from 10-40 miles before their gas engines provide assistance.
PHEV Examples
 Chevy Volt
 Chrysler Pacifica
 Ford C-Max Energi
 Ford Fusion Energi
 Mercedes C350e
 Mercedes S550e
 Mercedes GLE550e
 Mini Cooper SE Countryman
 Audi A3 E-Tron
 BMW 330e
 BMW i8
 BMW X5 xdrive40e
 Fiat 500e
 Hyundai Sonata
 Kia Optima
 Porsche Cayenne S E-Hybrid
 Porsche Panamera S E-hybrid
 Toyota Prius
 Volvo XC90 T8

Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEV)

HEVs are powere d by both gasoline and

electricity. The electric energy is generated
by the car’s own braking system to recharge
the battery. This is called ‘regenerative
braking’, a process where the electric motor
helps to slow the vehicle and uses some of
the energy normally converted to heat by the
brakes.
HEVs start off using the electric motor, then the gasoline engine cuts in as load or
speed rises. The two motors are controlled by an internal computer, which ensures the
best economy for the driving conditions.

HEV Examples
 Toyota Prius Hybrid
 Honda Civic Hybrid
 Toyota Camry Hybrid
 CHAPTER-2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Midgley and Dowling (1978) note that the initial research investigating the concept of consumer
innovativeness tended to be vague in the description of the concept and usually assigned degrees
of innovativeness to individuals based on a simple measurement of the relative time taken to
adopt an innovation. They proceed to argue that such an approach is prone to error due to factors
which may inhibit individuals from being innovative across all contexts. To account for the
described limitations, Midgley and Dowling (ibid.) propose that consumer innovativeness should
be considered as a multidimensional concept which has different levels of operation.

Midgley and Dowling (1978) argue that the transference of an individual’s innate
innovativeness into the revealed adoption of a Particulars innovativeness into the revealed
adoption of a Particulars innovation is likely to be mediated by intervening variables which may
impede adoption. These intervening variables include such issues as an individual’s interest in
the Particulars product category to which the innovation is being introduced, the communicated
experiences an individual receives from trusted sources concerning the quality of the innovation
and situational factors which may restrict their adoption such as financial constraints or
inflexibilities in ancillary systems.

Punj and Srinivasan (1992), differences in consumer motivations to undertake the purchase
process can be used to divide the car buyer population into four distinct segments: new need;
product depletion; higher expected satisfaction; current dissatisfaction. “New need” consumers
may have been previously satisfied with their current vehicle (or their non-vehicle status), but a
life event may reveal the need or desire for a vehicle to serve a different purpose. In the context
of vehicle purchase, “product depletion” consumers either need to replace a broken car or prefer
not to drive an aged vehicle.

Golob and Gould (1998) found that after only two weeks of EV use, households did not change
their desire for additional range, but Franke et al. (2012) found that range anxiety decreased as
drivers adjusted to driving EVs over a 6-month period.
Rogers, (2003) studies assume that preferences are stable; however, for EV preferences this is
untrue for two reasons: first, EV only became available recently and different groups of people
will adopt EV successively depending on their acceptance of innovation. People who enter the
market at a different point in time are expected to have different preference profiles, therefore the
preferences of consumers may vary over time.

Larminie & Lowry (2003) researched the Electric Vehicle technology and managed very well
to convey the essentials of this concept. While many people usually relate the EV term to the
traditional battery electric vehicle, the existing knowledge distinguishes between six categories
of Electric Vehicles.

Kurani et al. (2007) suggest, while current PEV adopters may not perfectly represent today’s
mainstream consumers, their behaviour and viewpoints provide insights into the future valuation
and use of PEVs by other consumers.

Anderson & Anderson (2010) speak about the countries that have shown increased interest in
this concept over the years. Countries such as France or US are the most often mentioned in
connection to the EV concept, while Asian countries such as China are not present on the EV
map. But that has changed, as of recently, with the introduction of the EV on the automotive
market. Thus, to the thesis it is of critical importance to understand the concept in the Asian
continent and see its directions, reasons for introduction, but also implications for future. The
next chapter is focused on seeing the EV concept within the borders of China.

Hess et al. (2012): a $1000 tax reduction is significantly positive while a $1000 price reduction
is not significant. This can possibly be due to the higher symbolic value attached to a higher
priced car.

Graham-Rowe et al. (2012) identify numerous barriers to PEV adoption by mainstream

consumers, including prioritization of personal mobility over environmental benefits, concerns
over the social desirability of PEVs, and the expectation that imminent technological innovation
will render current models obsolete.
Franke et al. (2012) found that people base their anticipated range needs on their most recent
long trip, rather than everyday driving behaviors. Numerous studies suggest that range anxiety
decreases with exposure to PEVs

Sperling and Eggert, (2014) stated that Whilst EVs remain a niche market application, research
examining consumer demand for EVs has been an active area of enquiry for the past thirty years.
Research was initiated in the early 1980s due to the occurrence of the 1970s oil shocks and the
growing awareness of air quality issues in some of the major conurbations of California which
combined to generate interest in the possibility of shifting away from ICE vehicles.

Caperello et al. (2014) find that men are more likely to display traits of “early market adopters”
while women have a tendency to display a greater reluctance to experiment, focusing on
practical concerns more typical of mainstream adopters. There are significant differences in
buyer demographics across common PEV models. Female buyers make up a larger share of
buyers of the plug-in Toyota Prius, which represents only a slight deviation from a mainstream
HEV in terms of technology and operation.

Rasouli and Timmermans (2013) investigated social influence in EV preference studies. As

proxy variables for social influence, they used EV market share among different groups (friends
and acquaintances, larger family, colleagues) and the nature (positive or negative) of general
public reviews about EV. Both have a significant although minor impact on EV preference.

Jensen et al. (2013) found the influence of battery life to increase after respondents participated
in a three month trial period of EV but both effects are non-significant. This issue is expected to
be relevant because there are a lot of uncertainties regarding battery life and consumers may
prefer more certainty for these aspects. Based on the existing results the significance of a
warranty’s effect remains unclear.

Franke, and Krems (2014) concluded that experience had a significant positive effect on the
general perception of EV and the intention to recommend EV to others, but not on attitudes and
purchase intentions.
Hoen and Koetse (2014) found that having more EV models available on the market increases
the probability of choosing an EV. It can be seen as an indicator of EV market maturity and thus
influence people’s perception of uncertainty. This may account for the low sales of EV as at
present there only a few brands with EVs for sale, and some potential EV buyers probably do not
like the specific brands or prefer more options to choose from.

Bunce et al. (2014) reported that after a trial period, users preferred recharging at home to
refuelling at petrol stations due to its convenience. In contrast, since EVs mostly rely on slow
charging, it is almost impossible to use an EV regularly if there is no charging facility at home or
work. Whether respondents were fully aware of this was not clear.

Kim et al. (2014) found that social influence (EV adoption rate in an individual’s social
network) also changes people’s preference for EV, although the effect is minor. However, these
studies only explored one factor separately and did not investigate the combined effect of several
possible sources of dynamics

Klöckner (2014) described an EV adoption decision-making process which describes the

volatility of intention over two months. Results contradict the implicit assumption of fixed
individual preference in most studies. The extent to which this affects choice model results is
currently unknown. Further research can start by exploring how consumers process information
when they purchase EV and taking this into account when analysing preferences based on choice
data. This would provide more accurate estimations of model coefficients and different policy
advice targeting different stages of a decision process.

Jensen et al. (2014) suggests that direct experience with EVs, implemented in the form of a
three-month trial, significantly increases consumer preference for the vehicles. Corporate, rental,
government, and point-to-point car-sharing fleets could all potentially be leveraged to increase
PEV exposure in the general population. Second, independent ratings agencies (e.g., Consumer
Reports, Ward’s Automotive) tend to list traditional vehicles by size with PEVs at the end,
perpetuating the illusion that PEVs are an entirely isolated category of vehicle, rather than a
subtype of vehicles within existing size classes.
U.C. Davis (2014) finds that 65 % of California’s dealerships had zero PEVs for sale. The
problem of low PEV availability is compounded by the fact that PEV sales are more complex for
dealers than traditionally-fueled LDV sales. PEV sales require specialized sales force
knowledge, as demonstrated by Evarts’ finding that PEV knowledge levels are generally low,
with typically one or two “gurus” in high-volume dealerships serving as customer points-of-
contact for PEV-related questions. The complexity of PEV sales for dealers can be proxied by
the amount of time required for each sale: 56 % of PEV buyers make three or more visits to
dealerships.

Moore (2014) suggests that the consumer experience can be improved, and the risk to dealers of
lost sales can be mitigated, if dealers help customers manage the whole process of PEV research
and purchase.

Valeri and Danielis (2015) included the car model in the label in the choice experiment;
however, the effect was not separated from fuel type.

Lim, Mak, & Rong, (2015) found that the option to lease an EV battery can increase the
preference for EV. There are a wide variety of business models in addition to battery lease and
their effects should be further explored.

Kannstatter & Meerschiff (2015) found that 71% of participants expressed interest in
considering an imminent purchase of an electric vehicle after a test drive. In another study
(Bunce et al., 2014), the number of drivers who were willing to pay a premium for a more
environmentally friendly vehicle jumped from 51% to 74% after exposure to the Ultra Low
Carbon Vehicle campaign in the United Kingdom.

Santulli (2015) found that none of the reported survey responses fall into the categories of
“product depletion” or “new need.” It is unclear whether these motivations were grouped into a
small category of “other reasons” in the study, if the study did not capture these motivations, or
if consumers with such motivations do not buy PEVs.
Williams & Johnson, (2016) identify the differences across regions’ informational materials, we
provide more details on electric vehicle cost comparison tools. The results of a survey in
California of recipients of electric vehicle purchase rebates indicate that fuel cost savings are the
primary motivation for selecting an electric vehicle

Reichmuth & Anair (2016), electric vehicle availability can often be very low across many
markets, and this limited model availability could be related to dealers’ level of effort. Better
consumer experiences at the dealership can facilitate the sales of electric vehicles. The
Corporation of Québec Automobile Dealers operates a website that allows prospective
consumers to identify dealerships that have Particulars electric vehicle models available.

The Consumer Reports Annual Auto Survey (2016) provides some insights into the market
for used PEVs. Consumer Reports currently lists 16 used hybrids as “Good Bets,” only one of
which includes the plug-in version: 2006-15 Toyota Prius, at #15, which it states is in “high
demand in the resale market.” The list is expected to grow as the current cohort of PEVs age and
are sold by their original owners. Hybrid vehicles (non-plug-in) provide a useful proxy for the
performance of PEVs in the used car market. HEVs have historically depreciated at lower rates
than most types of LDVs, Particularsly during periods of high gas prices. EVs are simpler from a
mechanical perspective, with fewer moving parts (e.g., combustion engine components) to
potentially fail.
 CHAPTER-3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

“Research in common parlance, to research for knowledge and it is not concerned to the revision
of the facts but to discover the new facts involved.”

OBJECTIVES
 To study the perceptions and expectations of potential, for alternative technologies in
automobiles, such as Electric Vehicles.
 To study the willingness of buyers of considering Electric Vehicles as a practical
commuting option.
 To study the current expectations of consumers with respect to Electric Vehicles.

DATA COLLECTION METHOD:

According to the needed research of the project; I pursued both primary & secondary data
collection methods. I have used web sites related to Mobile Services, some publications on the
net, & Value Added Services information broacher for secondary data collection. To ensure the
accuracy of the results the primary data collection method used is the structured interview
method.

Sampling:
The sampling units in my project are Consumers. The sample size was small by following the
convenience sampling method. There were queries for the persons interacted & the questionnaire
have been attached at last.

Sampling Size
The sample size of my research is 100 consumers. Large samples give more reliable results that
is why I tried my best to cover more users (consumers) in Ludhiana.

Area of Survey - Ludhiana.

Tools of analysis:
The statistical tools for analysis of collecting data will be used by average, percentage and
comparisons.
The Research stands for:-
1. To know how of the actual phenomenon occurring & exploring the new ideas with a clear
& precise insight.
2. To test the hypothesis with being variables to be compared within their relationship.

Sampling design, Procedure & Sample size: - A sample is always a part of the desired
universe & it should represent each & every aspect of the study being conducted. The only thing
is that the sample being chosen is of relevance & accurate source of information. My sampling
design is based on random sampling because each element gets probability to be included & all
choices made are independent of each other.
 CHAPTER-4
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Gender of the respondents

Table No.1: Gender Profile of Respondents

Gender No. of Respondent % of respondents

Male 65 65%
Female 35 35%
Total 100 100%

Gender

35%
Male
Female

65%

Fig. No.1: Gender Profile of Respondents

INTERPRETATION:
Interpretation: The result shows that majority of respondents i.e. 35% are males who are using
the electric car and 65% are the female who are using electric car.
Age of the respondents
Table No.2: Age Profile of Respondents
Age M % F %
18-30 15 15% 11 11%
31-45 11 11% 6 6%
46-60 6 6% 6 6%
61-75 20 20% 10 10%
75-higher 13 13% 2 2%
Total 65 35

25%

20%
20%

15%
15%
13%
11% 11%
10%
10%
6% 6% 6%
5%
2%

0%
18-30 31-45 46-60 61-75 75-higher

Male Female

Fig. No.2: Age Profile of Respondents

Interpretation: The result shows that 15% male and 11% female falls under the category of 18-
30 years, 11% male and 6% female falls under the category of 31-45 years, 6% male and 6%
females falls under the category of 46-60 years, 20% males and 10% females falls under the
category of 61-75 years and 13% male and 2% females falls under the category of 75-higher, it
shows that electric car is mainly famous among youngsters as they are the major users of
Electric-car and least comes under 20-39 years.
Occupation of the respondents
Table No.3: Occupation Profile of Respondents

Occupation M % F %
Student 12 12% 3 3%
Service 10 10% 10 10%
Professional 24 24% 12 12%
Business 6 6% 6 6%
Housewife 13 13% 4 4%
Total 65 35

30%

25% 24%

20%

15% 13%
12% 12%
10% 10%
10%
6% 6%
5% 4%
3%

0%
Student Service Professional Business Housewife

Male Female

Fig. No.3: Occupation Profile of Respondents

INTERPRETATION:
The above bar graph showed that 12% male and 3% female are students, 10% male and 10%
female comes under category of service, 24% male and 12% female comes under category of
professional, 6% male and 6% female comes under category of business and 13% male and 4%
female comes under category of housewife.
Monthly Income of the respondents
Table No.5: Income of Respondents
Income (Rs) M % F %
Below 50,000 6 6% 5 5%
50,000-1 lakh 17 17% 7 7%
1 lakh-5 lakh 12 12% 6 6%
>5 lakh 30 30% 17 17%
Total 65 35

35%
30%
30%

25%

20%
17% 17%
15%
12%
10%
6% 7% 6%
5%
5%

0%
Below 50,000 50,000-1 lakh 1 lakh-5 lakh >5 lakh

Male Female

Fig. No.5: Income of Respondents

INTERPRETATION:
The above bar graph showed that 6% male and 5% female had income of Rs 50,000, 17% male
and 7% female had income of Rs 50,000-1 lakh, 12% male and 6% female had income of Rs 1
lakh-5 lakh and 30% male and 17% female having Rs.>5 lakh.
Educational Qualification of the respondents

Table No.6: Education of Respondents

Educational Qualification No. of Respondent % of respondents

Secondary 8 8%
High secondary 19 19%
Graduated 28 28%
Post graduated 45 45%
Total 100 100%

Educational Qualification

8%
19%
Secondary
45% High secondary
Graduated
Post graduated

28%

Figure No.6: Education of Respondents

INTERPRETATION:
The above pie chart shows that 45% of the respondents are post graduate, 28% are graduated,
19% are high secondary and 8% of the respondents are secondary.
Q.1 Have you heard of electric cars (cars that are fully powered by an electric engine and use
no fuel)?
Particulars No. of respondents % of respondents
I have not heard about it 22 22%
I have heard a bit about it 36 36%
I have heard a lot about it 42 42%
Total 100 100%

22%

42%

I have not heard about it

I have heard a bit about it
I have heard a lot about it

36%

INTERPRETATION:

The above pie chart shows that majority of the respondents have heard a lot about it, 36% of
respondents have heard a bit about it and 22% of respondents have not heard about it.
Q.2 Would you buy an Electric Vehicle?

Particulars No. of respondents % of respondents

Yes 58 58%
No 42 42%
Total 100 100%

42%
Yes
No
58%

Interpretation:
The above pie chart shows that 58% of the respondents buy an electric vehicle and 42% of
respondents are not buy electric vehicle.
Q.3 Have you ever seen an electric passenger car in real life?

Particulars No. of respondents % of respondents

Not I have not 77 77%
Yes I have 23 23%
Total 100 100%

23%

Not I have not

Yes I have

77%

Interpretation:

The above pie chart shows that 77% of the respondents have not seen an electric passenger car in
real life and 23% of respondents have seen an electric passenger car in real life.
Q.4 How much do you drive/ travel during one day on average (whether by car on another
type of transport)?
Particulars No. of respondents % of respondents
Less than 20 km 5 5%
21-100km 12 12%
101-150km 20 20%
151-200km 30 30%
More than 200km 33 33%
Total 100 100%

35% 33%
30%
30%

25%
20%
20%

15%
12%
10%
5%
5%

0%
Less than 20 21-100km 101-150km 151-200km More than
km 200km

INTERPRETATION:

The respondents were asked to indicate the least amount of kilometres that they want to drive with an
electric car on one battery in order to consider buying an electric car. 5% of all respondents indicated a
minimum of less than 20 kilometres. This means that these 5% could be interested in buying the current
generation of electric vehicles. The majority of the respondents (33%) however have higher requirements
considering driving ranges of electric vehicles.
Q.5 Please select the main reason why do you would not be interested?
Particulars No. of respondents % of respondents
I want to have my car fully charged 12 12%
as quickly as possible
I dislike the idea of electrical 10 10%
companies being in control of my car
charging
I’m unsure what effect this will have 19 19%
on my battery
For me the price difference is not big 11 11%
enough
I’m not confident the car will be 9 9%
charged on time
I’m concerned I will suddenly need 39 39%
my car and it will not be charged
enough to drive as far as I need
Total 100 100%

39
40
30
19
20
12 10 11 9
10
0

Interpretation:

To get a better understanding of respondents’ preferences concerning charging up to a certain range and
delaying further charging and associated prices, respondents were asked to choose between three options.
The first option foresees charging the battery up to a capacity for 40 km, while the rest of the charging
process would be delayed.
Q.6 What is your attitude towards new technologies/ innovations?

Particulars No. of respondents % of

respondents
Extremely unfavorable 15 15%
Unfavorable 22 22%
Neither unfavorable nor favorable (neutral) 12 12%
Favorable 20 20%
Extremely favorable 31 31%
Total 100 100%

35% 31%
30%
25% 22% 20%
20% 15%
15% 12%
10%
5%
0%
e le l) le e
bl ab tra ab bl
ra r u r ra
av
o vo ne vo v o
fa e( Fa fa
nf n l
u U ab ely
ely v or em
em fa tr
tr or Ex
Ex e n
bl
ora
av
unf
er
ie th
N

Interpretation:

The above bar graph shows that attitudes towards the EV, their expression was positive towards such
product as they claimed their attitude to be extremely favorable as regards to the EV. The 22%
participants expressed unfavorable attitude toward the EV, 15% participants expressed extremely
unfavorable attitude towards the EV. The rest of the participants expressed neutral attitude towards
the EV.
Q.7 What is your attitude towards the Electric Vehicle?

Particulars No. of respondents % of

respondents
Extremely unfavorable 12 12%
Unfavorable 24 24%
Neither unfavorable nor favorable (neutral) 16 16%
Favorable 30 30%
Extremely favorable 18 18%
Total 100 100%

35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
e le l) le e
bl ab tra ab bl
ra r u r ra
av
o vo ne vo v o
fa e( Fa fa
nf n l
u U ab ely
ely v or em
em fa tr
tr or Ex
Ex e n
bl
ora
av
unf
er
ie th
N

Interpretation:

Despite the fact that price can significantly affect the pro-environmental attitude, all the participants
who claimed that they would not pay premium price, they expressed strong consideration of the
environmental issues and highly positive relation towards technology and innovations. Furthermore,
they expressed highly positive attitude towards the EV.
Q.8 In your opinion, how important is the contribution of the Electric Vehicle to the
Environment?

Particulars No. of respondents % of

respondents
Extremely unfavorable 13 13%
Unfavorable 8 8%
Neither unfavorable nor favorable (neutral) 19 15%
Favorable 45 45%
Extremely favorable 15 19%
Total 100 100%

45%

40%
30% 19%
13% 15%
20% 8%
10%
0%
le le l) le le
r ab r ab utra r ab r ab
vo vo (n
e vo vo
fa n fa le Fa fa
un U ab ely
ely vo
r m
em fa tre
tr r Ex
Ex e no
bl
ora
av
unf
er
eith
N

INTERPRETATION:
The above bar graph shows that 45% of the respondents favorable the contribution of the Electric
Vehicle to the Environment 15% respondents considered its role neither unimportant nor important,
19% respondents considered its role extremely favourable, 13% respondents considered extremely
unfavourable and 8% considered unfavorable the contribution of the Electric Vehicle to the
Environment.
Q.9 Rank the following factors’ importance for you as regards to the Electric Vehicle. *1-
Extremely unimportant, 2- Unimportant, 3- Neither important, nor important, 4-
important, 5- Extremely important
Mean score

Contribution to Environment 0.84

Price of Electric Vehicle 0.79
Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (e.g. Recharge stations, Battery swap)
Government support (incentives) towards 0.93
the Electric Vehicle
Electric Vehicle distance range 0.37

Interpretation:
Price and contribution to the environment was discussed partly earlier. There was also touching upon
driving range issue in the survey where participants were asked to estimate what kind of driving
range would serve their working days driving range the best.
10. Rank car specific attributes that will make you buy an Electric Vehicle *1 - Extremely
Unimportant, 2 - Unimportant, 3 - Neither unimportant, nor important, 4 - Important, 5 -
Extremely Important
Mean score

Colour 1.27
Interior 0.82
Cost of maintenance 0.62
Comfort 0.17
Speed/ acceleration 0.16
Design 0.14
Size -0.04
Trunk space -0.40
Technology 0.25
Customization 0.51

In the case of subjective requirements, the participants were asked to rank following chosen car
attributes: color, interior, the cost of maintenance, comfort, speed/acceleration, design, size, trunk
space, technology and customization. As in the previous case, the participants could rank these
attributes importance on scale 1-5, as 5 was being the extremely important. The reason to analyze
participants‟ evaluation of particular attributes is to find out their preferences if comes to the cars.
One might argue that because the participants are students they do not have to have necessarily
developed taste for cars. Let’s not forget that the purpose is to find out what attributes, so to say,
trigger participants interest into the EV and this does not need to be immensely related to their direct
(if they have) experience with cars.
Q.11 For you, what are the drawbacks of an electric car?

Particulars No. of respondents % of

respondents

Re-charging takes time 6 6%

Re-charging is inconvenient 10 10%

Initial cost to purchase 2 2%

Style/ design 17 17%

Limited choice 14 14%

Power delivery 22 22%

Low number of charging stations available 4 4%

Stigma of owing an electric car/ image 13 13%

I don’t know enough about electric cars 5 5%

I don’t think there are any drawbacks 7 7%

Other 0 0%

Total 100 100%

 25
22

20
17
15 14
13
10
10
7
6
5
5 4
2
0
0
e e ice y e e s s
tim ien
t
has sign o v er abl ag car ack he
r
es en r c d e ch e li ai l
/i
m i c b Ot
ak nv pu le/ ed rd av ar ctr aw
g t co to ty i t
w e n s c c e le
y dr
in S m tio i t
gin is co
st Li Po ta ec
tr ou ea
n
har g l s e l a b r
-c gin iti
a
in
g n h ea
Re h ar In arg n ga o ug her
Re
-c
fc
h
ow
i en kt
o f o w h in
be
r ao kn tt
m g m ’t o n’
n
nu Sti o Id
ow Id
L

Interpretation:

The above bar graph shows that the drawbacks of an electric car, 22% of the respondents due to
power delivery remain drawbacks of an electric car, 17% of the respondents due to style/design,
14% of the respondents due to limited choice, 13% of the respondents due to stigma of owning
an electric car/image, 10% of the respondents due to re-charging is inconvenient, 7% of the
respondents don’t think there are any drawbacks, 6% of the respondents due to recharging takes
time, 2% of the respondents due to initial cost to purchase, 4% of the respondents due to low
number of charging stations available and 5% of the respondents due to I don’t know enough
about electric cars.
Q.12 Do you plan to buy an electric car in the future?

Particulars M % F %
Yes 36 36% 30 30%
No 29 29% 5 5%
Total 65 35

40%
36%
35%
29% 30%
30%

25%

20%

15%

10%
5%
5%

0%
Male Female

Yes No

INTERPRETATION:

The bar graph shows that 36% male and 30% female plan to buy an electric car in the future and
29% male and 5% female not plan to buy an electric car in the future.
Q.13 How long until you plan to purchase an electric car?

Particulars No. of respondents % of

respondents
0-6 months 10 10%
6 months-1 year 20 20%
1-2 year 25 25%
2-4 years 17 17%
4 years or more 21 21%
Not sure 7 7%
Total 100 100%

30%

25%
25%

20% 21%
20%

15% 17%

10%
10%

5% 7%

0%
0-6 months 6 months-1 1-2 year 2-4 years 4 years or Not sure
year more

INTERPRETATION:
The above bar graph shows that 25% of the respondents plan to purchase an electric car for 1-2
year, 21% for 4 years or more, 20% for 6 month-1 year, 17% for 2-4 years, 10% for 0-6 months
and 7% of respondents are not sure to plan to purchase an electric car.
Q.14 What do you think the benefits are of owning an electric car?

Particulars No. of respondents % of

respondents
Fuel economy 5 5%
Produce less carbon emissions 8 8%
Reduce the dependency on fossil fuels 3 3%
It performs well 22 22%
Inexpensive to run 11 11%
Looks good to drive 30 30%
Easy to drive 15 15%
Publicity 6 6%
Other 100 100%

35
30
30
25 22
20
15
15
11
10 8
5 6
5 3
0
s ell e e
m
y
on els ru
n
riv iv ity
no si f u s w
to d dr blic
co is sil rm ve
to yt
o
Pu
le e em fos f o si od s
Fu on n er n o Ea
rb yo Itp x pe ksg
a c e o
sc de
n In Lo
les n
ce pe
o du e de
Pr et
h
c
du
Re

INTERPRETATION:
It is interpreted that majority of the respondents think advantages about looks good to drive, 22%
of the respondents think it performs well, 15% of respondents think easy to drive, 11% to think
inexpensive to run, 8% think produce less carbon emission, 6% think publicity, 5% think fuel
economy and 3% of respondents think reduce the dependency on fossil fuels.
 CHAPTER-4
FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

 35% are males who are using the electric car and 65% are the female who are using
electric car.
 15% male and 11% female falls under the category of 18-30 years, 11% male and 6%
female falls under the category of 31-45 years, 6% male and 6% females falls under the
category of 46-60 years, 20% males and 10% females falls under the category of 61-75
years and 13% male and 2% females falls under the category of 75-higher, it shows that
electric car is mainly famous among youngsters as they are the major users of Electric-car
and least comes under 20-39 years.
 12% male and 3% female are students, 10% male and 10% female comes under category
of service, 24% male and 12% female comes under category of professional, 6% male
and 6% female comes under category of business and 13% male and 4% female comes
under category of housewife
 6% male and 5% female had income of Rs 50,000, 17% male and 7% female had income
of Rs 50,000-1 lakh, 12% male and 6% female had income of Rs 1 lakh-5 lakh and 30%
male and 17% female having Rs.>5 lakh.
 45% of the respondents are post graduate, 28% are graduated, 19% are high secondary
and 8% of the respondents are secondary.
 36% of respondents have heard a bit about it and 22% of respondents have not heard
about it.
 58% of the respondents buy an electric vehicle and 42% of respondents are not buy
electric vehicle.
 77% of the respondents have not seen an electric passenger car in real life and 23% of
respondents have seen an electric passenger car in real life.
 5% of all respondents indicated a minimum of less than 20 kilometres. This means that these 5%
could be interested in buying the current generation of electric vehicles. The majority of the
respondents (33%) however have higher requirements considering driving ranges of electric
vehicles.
 The 22% participants expressed unfavorable attitude toward the EV, 15% participants
expressed extremely unfavorable attitude towards the EV. The rest of the participants
expressed neutral attitude towards the EV.
 Despite the fact that price can significantly affect the pro-environmental attitude, all the
participants who claimed that they would not pay premium price, they expressed strong
consideration of the environmental issues and highly positive relation towards technology
and innovations. Furthermore, they expressed highly positive attitude towards the EV.
 45% of the respondents favorable the contribution of the Electric Vehicle to the
Environment 15% respondents considered its role neither unimportant nor important, 19%
respondents considered its role extremely favourable, 13% respondents considered extremely
unfavourable and 8% considered unfavorable the contribution of the Electric Vehicle to
the Environment.
 Price and contribution to the environment was discussed partly earlier. There was also
touching upon driving range issue in the survey where participants were asked to estimate
what kind of driving range would serve their working days driving range the best.
 As in the previous case, the participants could rank these attributes importance on scale 1-5,
as 5 was being the extremely important. The reason to analyze participants ‟ evaluation of
particular attributes is to find out their preferences if comes to the cars. One might argue that
because the participants are students they do not have to have necessarily developed taste for
cars. Let’s not forget that the purpose is to find out what attributes, so to say, trigger
participants interest into the EV and this does not need to be immensely related to their direct
(if they have) experience with cars.
 22% of the respondents due to power delivery remain drawbacks of an electric car, 17%
of the respondents due to style/design, 14% of the respondents due to limited choice, 13%
of the respondents due to stigma of owning an electric car/image, 10% of the respondents
due to re-charging is inconvenient, 7% of the respondents don’t think there are any
drawbacks, 6% of the respondents due to recharging takes time, 2% of the respondents
due to initial cost to purchase, 4% of the respondents due to low number of charging
stations available and 5% of the respondents due to I don’t know enough about electric
cars.
 36% male and 30% female plan to buy an electric car in the future and 29% male and 5%
female not plan to buy an electric car in the future.
 25% of the respondents plan to purchase an electric car for 1-2 year, 21% for 4 years or
more, 20% for 6 month-1 year, 17% for 2-4 years, 10% for 0-6 months and 7% of
respondents are not sure to plan to purchase an electric car.
 22% of the respondents think it performs well, 15% of respondents think easy to drive,
11% to think inexpensive to run, 8% think produce less carbon emission, 6% think
publicity, 5% think fuel economy and 3% of respondents think reduce the dependency on
fossil fuels.
CONCLUSION

EV is a real solution for reducing the emissions in the transport sector, but its limited acceptance
makes it hard to see it as an applicable solution. In order for China to create a sustainable market for
EVs, the strong collaboration of all entities involved (e.g. Government, customers) is needed.
Furthermore, technological developments of EV attributes need to be undertaken. The issue of
battery technologies has to be considered as essential. Consistent with the thesis findings, the
consumers still have problems with accepting the limitations of battery technology (e.g. EV range,
charging time). Also the EV lacks in such facets like standards, infrastructure and price. These
practical sides of the EV are main constraints to successful acceptance. However, strong eco-
behavior can be sometimes enough for consumers to purchase such products, but in majority of cases
it is not. Consumers (students as well) are sufficiently aware of environmental problems. One can say
that they are willing to consume responsibly with respect to the environment. And this is shown in
the survey, as some respondents would rather go for other types of eco-friendly vehicles. They prefer
them because they are more environmentally friendly than regular IC cars, and have no limitations as
compared to EVs. Thus, till EV technologies are more developed, consumers will be inclined to other
environmentally friendly choices.
SUGGESTION

Addressing particular issues regarding EV. For example, the thesis does not go in depth with factors
such as Government that are highly important in the context of China;

 The context of Battery development is also of real interest, as the development of new
technologies in this domain will positively affect the situation of EV in China, but not only;
 More, the disadvantages of the EV could be better understood with their limitations, and having
particular studies discussing those issues;
 As the study has shown, attitude theory has not changed very much, and has remained the same
over the past decades. But consistent with our findings, consumers change continuously over
time, and for that reason new theories in consumer attitude context would be of interest.
 ANNEXURE-I
BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Afroz, R., Masud, M. M., Akhtar, R., Islam, M. A., & Duasa, J. B. (2015) Consumer
purchase intention towards environmentally friendly vehicles: an empirical investigation in
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Environmental Science and Pollution Research International,
22(20), 16153-16163.
 Garling, A., & Thogersen, J. (2008) Marketing of Electric Vehicles. Business Environment
and Strategy, 34(3), 53-65.
 Junquera, B., Moreno, B., & Álvarez, R. (2016) Analyzing consumer attitudes towards
electric vehicle purchasing intentions in Spain: Technological limitations and vehicle
confidence. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 109, 6-34.
 Leelakulthanit, O. (2012) Perceived Customer Value Regarding Eco-cars, 8(1),74–79.
 Menguc, B., Auh, S., & Yannopoulos, P. (2013) Customer and Supplier Involvement in
Design: The Moderating Role of Incremental and Radical Innovation Capability. The Journal
of Product Innovation Management, 31 (2), 313-328.
 Moons, I., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2012) Emotions as determinants of electric car usage
intention. Journal of Marketing Management, 28(3-4), 195-298.
 Morton, C., Anable, J., & Nelson, J. D. (2016) Assessing the importance of car meanings and
attitudes in consumer evaluations of electric vehicles. Energy Efficiency, 9(2), 495-509.
 PR Newswire. (2016) 48.7% of Canadians Would Go Green on Their Next Car Purchase.
Business and Economics. New York: PR Newswire Association LLC.
 Profile, M. I. (2015) Global hybrid & electric cars. Hybrid & Electric Cars Industry Profile:
Global, (December), 1–38.
 Profile, M. I. (2015). Hybrid & Electric Cars in Europe, 1–39,(December).
 Profile, M. I. (2015). Hybrid & Electric Cars in the United States, (December).
 Rossini, M., Ciarapica, F. E., Matt, D. T., & Spena, P. R. (2016) A Preliminary Study on the
Changes in the Italian Automotive Supply Chain for the Introduction of Electric Vehicles.
Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 9(2), 450–486.

i
 Smith, A. C. (2015) Report: Mid-Atlantic, Northeast US need to boost electric vehicles to cut
emissions. SNL Financial LC..
 Teixeira, A. C. R., Da Silva, D. L., MacHado Neto, L. D. V. B., Diniz, A. S. A.C., & Sodré,
J. R. (2015) A review on electric vehicles and their interaction with smart grids: The case of
Brazil. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy,17(4), 841–857.
 Turcksin, L., Mairesse, O., & Macharis, (2013) C. Private household demand for vehicles on
alternative fuels and drive trains: a review. European Transport Research Review, 5(3), 149-
164.
 Welvaert, D., James, B. Y., & News, E. G. (2013). Newsmaker EV Sector Charging Ahead,
20–22. (May).

ii
 ANNEXURE-II
QUESTIONNAIRE

Name : ___________________

Age :- 18-30 31-45 46-60

61-75 75- higher

Gender :- Male Female

OCCUPATION:- Student Service Business Housewife

Professional

INCOME:- (a) 50,000-1,00,000

(b) 1,00,000 – 5,00,000
(c) > 5,00,000

EDUCATION STATUS:
(a) Secondary
(b) High Secondary
(c) Graduated
(d) Post graduated

1. Have you heard of electric cars (cars that are fully powered by an electric engine and use
no fuel)?
I have not heard about it
I have heard a bit about it
I have heard a lot about it

2. Would you buy an Electric Vehicle?

Yes
No
3. Have you ever seen an electric passenger car in real life?
No I have not
Yes I have

iii
4. How much do you drive / travel during one day on average (whether by car or another
type of transport) ?
less than 20 km
21-100 km
101 - 150 km
151 - 200 km
more than 200 km

5. Please select the main reason why you would not be interested?
I want to have my car fully charged as quickly as possible
I dislike the idea of electrical companies being in control of my car charging
I’m unsure what effect this will have on my battery
For me the price difference is not big enough
I’m not confident the car will be charged on time
I’m concerned I will suddenly need my car and it will not be charged enough to drive as
far as I need
Other, please specify____________________________________

6. What is your attitude towards new technologies/innovations?

Extremely Unfavorable
Unfavorable
Neither unfavorable nor favorable (neutral)
Favorable
Extremely Favorable

7. What is your attitude toward the Electric Vehicle?

Extremely Unfavorable
Unfavorable
Neither unfavorable nor favorable (neutral)
Favorable
Extremely Favorable

iv
8. In your opinion, how important is the contribution of the Electric Vehicle to the
Environment?
Extremely Unimportant
Unimportant
Neither unimportant nor important (neutral)
Important
Extremely Important

9. Rank the following factors' importance for you as regards to the Electric Vehicle. *1 -
Extremely Unimportant, 2 - Unimportant, 3 - Neither unimportant, nor important, 4 -
Important, 5 - Extremely Important
1 2 3 4 5

Contribution to Environment

Price of Electric Vehicle

Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (e.g.Recharge
stations, Battery swap)
Government support (incentives) towards
the Electric Vehicle
Electric Vehicle distance range

10. Rank car specific attributes that will make you buy an Electric Vehicle *1 - Extremely
Unimportant, 2 - Unimportant, 3 - Neither unimportant, nor important, 4 - Important, 5 -
Extremely Important
1 2 3 4 5

Colour

Interior

Cost of maintenance

Comfort
Speed/ acceleration

Design

Size v

Trunk space

Technology

Customization

Q.11 For you, what are the drawbacks of an electric car?

Re-charging takes time
Re-charging is inconvenient
Initial cost to purchase
Style/ design
Limited choice
Power delivery
Low number of charging stations available
Stigma of owing an electric car/image
I don’t know enough about electric cars
I don’t think there are any drawbacks
Other, please specify_______________

Q.12 Do you plan to buy an electric car in the future?

Yes
No

Q.13 How long until you plan to purchase an electric car?

0-6 months
6 months-1 year
1-2 years
2-4 years
 4 years or more
Not sure
Q.14 What do you think the benefits are of owning an electric car?
vi
Fuel economy
Produce less carbon emissions
Reduce the dependency on fossil fuels
It performs well
Inexpensive to run
Looks good to drive
Easy to drive
Publicity
Other, please specify

vii
 A STUDY OF POTENTIAL CONSUMERS TOWARDS
ELECTRIC CARS

SUBMITTED TO PANJAB UNIVERSITY, CHANDIGARH

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF
BACHELOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

DR. POOJA CHATLEY URBHI CHOPRA
(H.O.D) PUPIN- 14316000719
ROLL NO.16089960

KHALSA COLLEGE FOR WOMEN

CIVIL LINES, LUDHIANA
(2018-2019)
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

If words are considered as symbol of taken and appreciation then let words play their heralding
role of expressing my sincerest gratitude and thanks.

Foremost of all I express my sincere gratitude to almighty for bestowing upon me favours and
keeping me high spirit.

I was to express my deep gratitude to Dr. (Ms.) Pooja Chatley for acting as a guide and
providing me with continuous support and guidance. This report could not have been completed
without the inputs and the words of advice from her for where I shall always remain grateful to
her.

I am highly thankful to all the people directly related and the students for being cooperative
without whose help this project would not have been proven meaningful.

Urbhi Chopra
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project entitled on “A study of potential consumers towards electric
cars” embodies the work carried out by Urbhi Chopra, ( 14316000719) herself under my
supervision and that it is worthy of consideration for evaluation.

Dr. Pooja Chatley

(Head of Department)
 DECLARATION

I hereby affirm that work presented in this project report entitled on “A study of potential
consumers towards electric cars” is exclusively my own and there are no collaboration
does not contain any work for which degree or diploma has been avoided by any other
university / institution.

Dated:
Place: Urbhi Chopra
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Chapter Name Page no.

No.

1. INTRODUCTION 1-30

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 31-36

3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 37-38

4. DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 39-58

5. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION 59-63

ANNEXURE-I i-ii

ANNEXURE-II iii-vii