• Energy Research

While electric vehicles (EV) can perform better than conventional vehicles from an environmental standpoint, consumers perceive them to be more expensive due to their higher capital cost. Recent studies calculated the total cost of ownership (TCO) to evaluate the complete cost for the consumer, focusing on individual vehicle classes, powertrain technologies, or use cases. To provide a comprehensive overview, we built a probabilistic simulation model broad enough to capture most of a national market. Our findings indicate that the comparative cost efficiency of EV increases with the consumer's driving distance and is higher for small than for large vehicles. However, our sensitivity analysis shows that the exact TCO is subject to the development of vehicle and operating costs and thus uncertain. Although the TCO of electric vehicles may become close to or even lower than that of conventional vehicles by 2025, our findings add evidence to past studies showing that the TCO does not reflect how consumers make their purchase decision today. Based on these findings, we discuss policy measures that educate consumers about the TCO of different vehicle types based on their individual preferences. In addition, measures improving the charging infrastructure and further decreasing battery cost are discussed.

Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 162 ISSN:0921-3449 ISSN:1879-0658

Abstract The success of green electricity promotion hinges, among other things, on the liquidity in green power markets, i.e. how easy it is for market participants to trade green power in the market. This study reviews archetypes of green power markets worldwide with regard to market liquidity. Additionally, it identifies mechanisms through which trading characteristics, namely the dominant trading channel and the dominantly traded product, can influence liquidity in green power markets. The study finds that trading on an exchange platform or via brokers can foster liquidity better than bilateral trading. Also, trading spot or forward products can better support liquidity in green power markets than trading long-term contracts.

Abstract In the light of pressing societal challenges such as climate change and resource scarcity, scholars are increasingly interested in studying policy mixes in the context of sustainability transitions. However, despite numerous conceptual advances and empirical insights, researchers still lack universal criteria or accepted heuristics for delineating policy mixes in these complex policy spaces. We address this gap by conducting an extensive review of the literature, synthesizing best practices, and developing an analytical framework that provides researchers with two archetypical methodological approaches. The top-down approach builds on the idea that the elements of a policy mix originate from an overarching strategic intent. By contrast, the bottom-up approach starts from the definition of a focal impact domain that is affected by a range of policy instruments. For each approach, we outline a systematic analytical procedure, then implement it to scrutinize how policy affects the emerging technological domain of energy storage in California. We find that each approach has particular advantages that render it useful for certain policy mix analyses. Discussing how researchers may choose between the two approaches or leverage their complementarities, we seek to provide the basis for a consistent research program building on the policy mix framework.

AbstractThe current enthusiasm for the circular economy (CE) offers a unique opportunity to advance the impact of research on sustainability transitions. Diverse interpretations of CE by scholars, however, produce partly opposing assessments of its potential benefits, which can hinder progress. Here, we synthesize policy‐relevant lessons and research directions for a sustainable CE and identify three narratives—optimist, reformist, and skeptical—that underpin the ambiguity in CE assessments. Based on 54 key CE scholars’ insights, we identify three research needs: the articulation and discussion of ontologically distinct CE narratives; bridging of technical, managerial, socio‐economic, environmental, and political CE perspectives; and critical assessment of opportunities and limits of CE science–policy interactions. Our findings offer practical guidance for scholars to engage reflexively with the rapid expansion of CE knowledge, identify and pursue high‐impact research directions, and communicate more effectively with practitioners and policymakers.