Authors: Jose Soledispa Santana, Tomas Vence Jiménez, March, 2025
1 Description and History
Electric vehicles and batteries are closely linked. In 1800, Alesandro Volta was able to store electrical energy chemically, and in 1831 Michael Faraday outlined the principles of electromagnetic induction, which led to electric motors and generators that could be used in electric cars. In 1861, Antonio Pacinotti invented the direct current (DC) motor and in 1881, Mr. Trouvé built a tricycle (the first electric vehicle) powered by a lead battery. Around the year 1893, six types of electric cars were on display at a world exhibition in Chicago. By 1897, there were 15 such taxis in London and 13 in New York. By 1912, there were around 30,000 electric vehicles in the USA. From then on, the limitations of battery charging became apparent.1
Then came the war, and the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) entered the war effort, increasing its production exponentially, as did the introduction of mass production of ICE cars. In 1929, with the stock market crash and the international economic depression, many electric vehicle companies went bankrupt. Because of the Second World War and a petrol shortage some incentives were established to develop some electric vehicles such as tax exemption, with this for example, Germany during the war had 30,000 EVs for postal service, same number for Great Britain for electric van milk and bread deliveries.1
In 1963 Rachel Carson published her book Silent Spring, which focused on the pollution caused by chemicals used in agriculture, sparking a debate about air pollution problems in large cities and identifying carbon monoxide from ICE as a greater responsibility. In 1972, the Club of Rome’s book The Limits to Growth highlighted the problem of the continued use of non-renewable resources.1
In 1973, three major events (the oil embargo, the ban on cars and the debate on nuclear power) led to a debate on the development of alternative energy sources such as solar, wind, wave, bio-energy, and heat pumps, but this was not enough to encourage the production of electric vehicles. 1 During this period, the Japanese government began to support the research into electric vehicles, the results of which were evident in the 1990s, when Japanese car manufacturers dominated the market.2
Today, the current global scenario poses challenges in terms of environmental pollution, limited resources and rising fuel prices, so there is a renewed of interest in electric vehicles (EVs) powered by renewable energy, with the proliferation of charging points around the world and improvements in batteries being the main factors driving electric vehicles.2 EVs are highly efficient and primarily consist of a DC motor driven by a storage system. The main reason for the high efficiency of EVs is the use of permanent magnet brushless DC motors, which provide better torque-speed characteristics, higher output power to size ratio, faster dynamic response, and quieter operation.3
In terms of energy storage, there are various energy systems that can store energy, such as batteries, supercapacitors, fuel cells (FC), hydraulic accumulators (HACCs) and hydrogen storage. When it comes to fuel cells, proton exchange membrane cells (PEMFCs), are the most promising for use in EVs due to their fast response, low temperature operation and long life. Focusing on batteries, there are currently three types available in the transport market: lead acid, nickel, and lithium based. The most cost effective option is the lithium-ion battery as it has a high specific energy (up to 250 kWh/kg), high power density (between 0.5 and 2 kW/kg), high energy efficiency (99-100%), low self-discharge, long life and moderate cost.4
Figure 1: Power train configuration of single source (a) Powertrain of BEV (b) Powertrain of FCEV. Power train multi-source configuration (c) Hybrid power train of battery and FC.4
2 Economic Performance
In this section, a comparison will be made between ICE and EVs in terms of Total Cost Ownership (TCO), which can be related to environmental factors, societal factors, and additional interests such as purchase price, running costs, performance, etc. The first two factors will be discussed later in this article.5
TCO includes the purchase cost of the vehicle, and all the operating costs associated with its ownership. The correlation between engine cost and engine power for an ICEV is on average $21.3/kW, while the inverter cost is around $3.4/kW, but the battery increases the final price of the EVs, figure 3 shows the cost breakdown by component for ICE and BEV of 1750 Kg.
Despite the higher price of BEVs, they have some attractive features such as faster and smoother acceleration, zero emissions, quieter vehicles, and higher pack to wheel efficiency. In addition, the higher purchase price of a BEV can be mitigated and offset over the lifetime of the vehicle through savings in lower energy and maintenance costs. According to 5, the cost parity of owning a BEV200 is reached in 6.8-7.7 years, but this is highly sensitive to the fluctuating market of petrol/electricity price. Table 1 shows the potential of electric vehicles once the infrastructure is in place.5
It is noticeable that batteries are the most expensive component of EVs, but in the last 10 years the price of lithium-ion batteries has fallen by more than 80% (from $1000/kWh to $156/kWh at the end of 2019). Recent trends indicate that the components of an EV powertrain will increase their power density, reduce losses, and lower costs. The global adoption rate of EVs has increased rapidly: at the end of 2019, EVs sales totaled more than $2.2 million. In that year, there were about 700,000 medium – heavy duty commercial vehicles (such as transit buses, school buses) in the whole world.7
An example of energy efficiency range for medium and heavy-duty EVs is between 0.5–2.5 kWh/km, assuming a daily operating range of 80-322 km, this requires a battery size between 40 kWh and 640 kWh. This presents a significant challenge to the design, development, and manufacture of systems capable of meeting these operational requirements.7
The electric vehicles sector is largely dependent on the political strategy to promote their use and have available more investment in renewable energy and electrified transport. In 2021, there was a 77% increase in investment in the sector, with $250 billion spent on EVs and infrastructure, but most of this global investment in the electrified transport sector was concentrated in a few countries: China, the United States, Germany, the United Kingdon, and France. Government incentives are quite important to stimulate the purchase of EVs, as are falling battery prices and further research into improving the electric vehicle supply chain.8
The number of EVs models has increased by 40% compared to 2019, and the average battery cost has decreased by 13% compared to previous years, as shown in figure 3, resulting in a more competitive TCO. Figure 4 states that demand for EVs has increased over the years.8
3 Ecological Performance
Table 2 compares ICE, HEV and EVs in terms of pollutant components, the ICE emits the most air pollutants, but Sulphur oxides and particle matter are higher for the EV than for any other vehicles due to the use of raw materials to produce electricity, these could lead to an increase in human toxicity level from the use of metals, chemicals and energy in the production of powertrains and high voltage batteries.9
An important factor to consider is the reduced cost of the alternative fuel vehicles and hydrogen which have been implemented for EVs to significantly reduce the external cost. However, this lower external cost is offset by the high purchase price of EVs, but it is still a promising technology and it is expected to increase market penetration. 6
To analyze the automotive supply chain, it can be divided into three main parts: Reverse Supply Chain, Forward Supply Chain, and Energy Supply Chain. First-tier suppliers produce the parts and components that are assembled into final vehicles at OEM production sites. The final product is then delivered to the customer or export markets by dealers. Electricity for production and use of electrified vehicles is supplied according to the local energy mix. Fuel supply consists of the well to tank stage which covers the supply from crude oil exploration to fuel distribution, and the tank to wheel stage, which refers to the internal use of fuel by the powertrain. Finally, the end-of-life vehicles are delivered to the scrapyards where they are dismantled, and their parts are either recycled or disposed of. Figure 5 shows the process involved in the manufacture of both conventional cars and electric vehicles.10
Over the past decade, several factors have contributed to improvements in the environmental impact of electric vehicles (EVs), including increased energy efficiency, reductions in life cycle emissions, technological advancements, cost reductions, and lower emissions.
Initially, EVs were primarily assessed based on their lack of tailpipe emissions. However, a full life cycle assessment indicates that their overall environmental performance depends on both the production process and the electricity mix used for charging. Over time, battery production has become more energy efficient, and electricity grids have integrated more renewable energy sources, leading to a significant reduction in the life cycle emissions of EVs, including greenhouse gases and particulate matter. 9 Additionally, advancements in recycling technologies have made it possible to recover critical materials, reducing the environmental impact associated with raw material extraction. Studies suggest that for every 10% increase in the share of renewable energy in the grid, EV-related CO₂-equivalent emissions per kilometer can decrease by 5–10%.11
Lithium-ion battery costs have declined by over 80% in the last decade due to improvements in battery design, energy density, and production processes. These cost reductions, along with advancements in battery recycling and second-life applications, have further lowered the environmental impact of EVs. New recycling methods help recover valuable metals, reducing the demand for raw material extraction, which can have negative ecological effects.9 As illustrated in Figure 3, the cost per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of batteries has dropped from over $1000/kWh in the early 2010s to approximately $150/kWh by 2020, driven by advancements in cell chemistry, manufacturing scale, and supply chain efficiency. 4
Studies comparing different propulsion systems highlight the potential of alternative energy sources to reduce emissions. Liu et al. (2020) analyzed the well-to-wheels energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles compared to conventional gasoline vehicles, showing that alternative propulsion systems perform better when paired with cleaner energy sources.14 Similarly, Buberger et al. (2022) assessed the total CO₂-equivalent life cycle emissions of passenger vehicles, demonstrating that the environmental benefits of EVs increase as manufacturing and recycling processes improve.15
The overall ecological advantage of EVs largely depends on the energy mix used for charging. In regions with higher shares of renewable energy, the emissions per kilometer of EV use have decreased significantly compared to areas that still rely heavily on fossil fuels. This shift in the electricity generation mix continues to be a major factor in improving the environmental performance of EVs over time.3
3 Social Impact
Electric vehicles, once considered experimental, have become increasingly accepted by the public. Greater environmental awareness, concerns about urban air quality, and rising fuel costs have contributed to a growing interest in cleaner transportation options. Studies indicate that as consumers learn more about the benefits of EVs, such as lower noise levels, smoother acceleration, and reduced local air pollution, social acceptance has improved. 8 Government-led information campaigns and positive media coverage have also played a role in this shift. Research suggests that as people recognize the long-term health benefits of lower air pollution, acceptance of EVs continues to increase. “Research carried out by Venson Automotive Solutions has revealed 45% of drivers are reconsidering their plans for electric vehicles due to the radical improvement on air pollution across the globe from reduced traffic. A further 17% said it reaffirmed the decision they had already made to make the switch to an EV. Of the 45% of motorists who are now reassessing their EV options, 19% said their next company car or private purchase would be an EV, with the remaining 26% confirming they intend to become an EV driver in the next five years” (Middleton, 2020).
By the end of 2019 (see Figure 7), an estimated 7.3 million EV chargers were in place worldwide, with nearly 0.9 million being public chargers, 81% of which were located in China.29 Government support and private investments continue to drive the expansion of public charging infrastructure globally.
The adoption of EVs has led to several positive social impacts. Reduced tailpipe emissions improve urban air quality, lowering exposure to pollutants such as NOₓ, PM₁₀, and SOₓ, which are linked to respiratory diseases and other health risks. Research indicates that better air quality can reduce premature mortality and healthcare costs, providing wider societal benefits.13,16 Additionally, the growth of the EV industry has contributed to job creation, not only in vehicle manufacturing but also in infrastructure development, battery production, and recycling. This expansion supports local economies, reduces reliance on imported fossil fuels, and strengthens regional supply chains, helping to address social and economic inequalities.7,17
Despite these benefits, some social challenges persist. The production of EVs, particularly battery manufacturing, requires the extraction of materials such as lithium and cobalt, which can cause environmental damage and pose health risks to mining communities. Another concern is the low noise levels of EVs—while they contribute to quieter urban environments, they may also create safety risks for pedestrians who rely on sound cues. These challenges highlight the need for policies that promote sustainable supply chains and address urban safety as EV technology continues to develop.9
4 Political and Legal Aspects
Government policies and legal frameworks have played a key role in the adoption of EV technology. A combination of incentives, regulations, and strategic policies has influenced the market across different regions.
EV development has been shaped by various policies, from early government-funded research in Japan to more recent fiscal incentives, tax exemptions, and emissions regulations in Europe, China, and North America. These measures have helped lower the initial cost of EVs, encouraged investment in charging infrastructure, and increased market adoption. In particular, strong incentives in China and the United States have contributed significantly to global EV growth.2 Stricter emissions regulations have also pushed manufacturers to develop cleaner technologies. For example, the European Union’s CO₂ targets for new vehicles have accelerated the transition from internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles to EVs. Both public and private investments in charging infrastructure remain essential, with legislative measures and long-term planning focused on expanding the charging network to support a growing number of EVs.10
In addition to direct subsidies, other policy measures such as carbon pricing, low-emission zones, and mandatory fleet electrification have been introduced. Each approach has trade-offs. While subsidies and tax breaks can encourage EV adoption quickly, they may strain public finances and distort the market if not carefully managed. Carbon pricing, on the other hand, creates market-based incentives to lower emissions but requires broad political agreement and can be difficult to implement fairly.10 Recent efforts toward international standards (International Harmonization) for vehicle safety, battery recycling, and emissions control are designed to smooth these differences, enhancing the global competitiveness of EVs.
Policy differences across regions also pose challenges for global manufacturers. Efforts to establish international standards for vehicle safety, battery recycling, and emissions control aim to reduce these discrepancies and improve the global competitiveness of EVs. However, variations in safety and environmental regulations between countries can complicate supply chains and create imbalances in the industry. Policymakers continue to work toward balancing economic growth with environmental objectives, ensuring that the transition to electric transportation supports both technological progress and sustainability.2,10
Based on Table 4, the data shown by country describes the trends of different parts of the world impacted by policy interventions. Norway set a target for 100% of new car sales to be zero-emission vehicles by 2025. The government incentivized EVs through exemptions from tolls, taxes, and parking fees. Norway became a global leader in EV adoption, with EVs comprising over 50% of new car sales by 2020 and close to 100% by 2024.23 China introduced aggressive subsidies for EVs and set ambitious goals for EV adoption, aiming for 20% of new car sales to be electric by 2025. China became the largest EV market globally, with EV sales growing exponentially. By 2020, about 5-6% of total vehicle sales in China were electric.24 The EU introduced stringent CO₂ emissions standards to reduce the carbon footprint of new vehicles. Automakers who exceeded these limits faced penalties. This spurred automakers to accelerate the production of EVs, with EV market share reaching around 10% by 2020 and around 14.6% by 2023.25 The U.S. offered tax credits up to $7,500 for qualifying EVs, which helped lower the initial purchase cost for consumers. The U.S. saw steady growth in EV adoption, with EVs making up around 2% of all new car sales by 2020. By 2023, adoption rose to approximately 5%.26 The UK announced that sales of new petrol and diesel cars would be banned by 2030, further accelerating the transition to electric vehicles. This policy has led to a steady increase in EV sales in the UK, with 15% of all new car registrations in 2023 being electric vehicles.27 Germany implemented a “scrappage bonus” that provided financial incentives to consumers purchasing new electric vehicles. The program helped Germany become one of the largest markets for EVs in Europe, with nearly 400,000 new EV registrations in 2024.28
References
1 Høyer, K. G. The history of alternative fuels in transportation: The case of electric and hybrid cars. Utilities Policy 16, 63-71 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2007.11.001
2 Iulia, V. & Loránd, S. A Brief History of Electric Vehicles. Journal of Computer Science & Control Systems 15(2022).
3 Kumar, M. S. & Revankar, S. T. Development scheme and key technology of an electric vehicle: An overview. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 70, 1266-1285 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.12.027
4 Li, Z., Khajepour, A. & Song, J. A comprehensive review of the key technologies for pure electric vehicles. Energy 182, 824-839 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.06.077
5 Liu, Z. et al. Comparing total cost of ownership of battery electric vehicles and internal combustion engine vehicles. Energy Policy 158, 112564 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112564
6 Mitropoulos, L. K., Prevedouros, P. D. & Kopelias, P. Total cost of ownership and externalities of conventional, hybrid and electric vehicle. Transportation Research Procedia 24, 267-274 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.117
7 Muratori, M. et al. The rise of electric vehicles—2020 status and future expectations. Progress in Energy 3, 022002 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1088/2516-1083/abe0ad
8 Ajanovic, A. The impact of COVID‐19 on the market prospects of electric passenger cars. Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Energy and environment 11, e451-n/a (2022). https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.451
9 Verma, S., Dwivedi, G. & Verma, P. Life cycle assessment of electric vehicles in comparison to combustion engine vehicles: A review. Materials Today: Proceedings 49, 217-222 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.01.666
10 Günther, H. O., Kannegiesser, M. & Autenrieb, N. The role of electric vehicles for supply chain sustainability in the automotive industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 90, 220-233 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.058
11 IEA. (2021). Global EV Outlook 2021. International Energy Agency.
12 Middleton N. (2020). Drivers more likely to switch to EVs in wake of Covid-19 lockdown. https://fleetworld.co.uk/drivers-more-likely-to-switch-to-evs-in-wake-of-covid-19-lockdown/
13 McKinsey & Company. (2020). Electrifying the future: The role of policy in accelerating EV adoption. McKinsey Insights.
14 Liu, X., Reddi, K., Elgowainy, A., Lohse-Busch, H., & Wang, M. (2020). Comparison of well-to-wheels energy use and emissions of a hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle relative to a conventional gasoline-powered internal combustion engine vehicle. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy.
15 Buberger, J., Kersten, A., Kuder, M., Eckerle, R., & Weyh, T. (2022). Total CO₂-equivalent life-cycle emissions from commercially available passenger cars. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews.
16 Garcia, E., Johnston, J., McConnell, R., Palinkas, L., & Eckel, S. P. (2023). California’s early transition to electric vehicles: Observed health and air quality co-benefits. Science of the Total Environment.
17 Tessum, C. W., Hill, J., & Marshall, J. (2014). Life cycle air quality impacts of conventional and alternative light-duty transportation in the United States. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
18 Haghani, M., Ghaderi, H., & Hensher, D. (2024). Hidden effects and externalities of electric vehicles. Energy Policy.
19 Anilan, V., & Vij, A. (2024). Taking the wheel: Systematic review of reviews of policies driving BEV adoption. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment.
20 Associated Press. (2024, March 9). Global clean energy transition faces new challenges. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/global-clean-energy-transition-df50c39865f3d24cf78ac9d58f0ad07c
21 Carrington, D. (2025, March 7). London air pollution down since ULEZ expansion, study finds. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/mar/07/london-air-pollution-down-since-ulez-expansion-study
22 Ellingsen, L. A.-W., Singh, B., & Strømman, A. H. (2016). The size and range effect: Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of electric vehicles. Environmental Research Letters, 11(5), 054010. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/054010
23 Cleveland, C., & Dube, S. (2021). Policy and consumer behavior in the Norwegian electric vehicle market. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(16), 11234-11242.
24 He, H., & Qiao, W. (2020). Impact of subsidies on electric vehicle adoption in China. Energy Policy, 144, 111654.
25 European Commission (2020). The impact of CO₂ emissions standards on the electric vehicle market in the EU. European Transport Policy Journal.
26 Sierzchula, W., Bakker, S., Maat, K., & Van Wee, B. (2014). The influence of financial incentives and other socio-economic factors on electric vehicle adoption. Energy Economics, 44, 23-35.
27 Hawkins, T. R., Singh, B., Majeau-Bettez, G., & Hammer, S. (2022). The role of policy in the adoption of electric vehicles in the UK. Environmental Research Letters, 17(3), 034021.
28 Gössling, S., Hall, C. M., & Zografos, A. (2021). The role of government subsidies in driving electric vehicle adoption in Germany. Transport Policy, 101, 132-142.
29 IEA. (2020). Global EV outlook 2020. International Energy Agency.
30 European Environment Agency. (2021). Air quality in Europe – 2021 report. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/air-quality-in-europe-2021
31 U.S. Department of Energy. (2021). Fuel economy guide. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/guides/FEG2021.pdf
32 Timmers, V. R. J. H., & Achten, P. A. J. (2016). Non-exhaust PM emissions from electric vehicles. Atmospheric Environment, 134, 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.03.017