MTI report finds consumers receptive to alt-fuel vehicles, but still prefer gasoline; quantifying the trade-offs
20 July 2011
|
|
| Importance of AFV characteristics in ranking decision. “Concerns about GHG emissions” polled the largest “not important at all” results at 9%. Data: Nixon and Saphores. Click to enlarge. |
A new survey of consumer preferences among four different types of alternative fuel vehicles (AFVs) by Hilary Nixon and Jean-Daniel Saphores of The Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI) finds that while consumers in general still prefer gasoline-fueled vehicles over AFVs, there is strong interest in AFVs.
None of the four types of AFV examined—hybrid electric vehicles (HEV), compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell (HFC) vehicles, and battery-electric vehicles (EV)—was overwhelmingly preferred, although HEVs seem to have an edge, the authors said in their study,Understanding Household Preferences for Alternative-Fuel Vehicle Technologies. Full EVs were ranked last in preference by 40% of the respondents.
|
|
| Click to enlarge. |
A major focus of the research was assessing the trade-offs people are willing to make among key AFV characteristics, including vehicle cost, fuel cost, vehicle range, and refueling time. To leave people’s utility unchanged, a $1,000 increase in AFV cost needs to be compensated by either:
- A $300 savings in driving cost over 12,000 miles'
- A 17.5-mile increase in vehicle range; or
- A 7.8-minute decrease in total refueling time (e.g., finding a gas station and refueling).
A 10-mile decrease in vehicle range needs to be compensated by a 4.2-minute decrease in total refueling time.
The vehicle range trade-off primarily concerns EVs, the authors note, and it highlights the importance of range for the respondents. The respondents also place a very high value on refueling convenience, which emphasizes the importance of providing enough refueling infrastructure to make AFVs a viable transportation option for households, Nixon and Saphores concluded.
|
|
| Click to enlarge. |
More than one-quarter of the survey respondents were misinformed about the environmental impacts of motor vehicles or about current vehicle gas-mileage regulations. In particular, educating the public about the advantages of AFVs and the public health impacts of pollution from current vehicles will be necessary to increase support for AFVs, the authors said.
Our analysis reveals that consumers are receptive to AFVs—an outcome that bodes well for policymakers and manufacturers. Nearly two-thirds of the survey respondents listed an AFV (including HEVs) as their top choice in the ranking exercises. While no technology is overwhelmingly preferred, HEVs seem to be currently the most popular alternative to gasoline-fueled vehicles. Except among a small group of respondents, EVs are not favored, despite an emphasis on this technology by the Obama administration.
Although the environmental benefits of AFVs are often touted by the media, this characteristic does not seem to be a determinant for consumers when making large purchases, like motor vehicles. Economic concerns are consumers’ priority, so policymakers and manufacturers who would like to increase the market share for AFVs must make environmental issues a greater priority. More than one-quarter of our respondents were misinformed about the environmental impacts of motor vehicles or about current vehicle gas-mileage regulations; in particular, educating the public about the advantages of AFVs and the public health impacts of pollution from current vehicles will be necessary to increase support for AFVs.
—Nixon and Saphores
The nationwide three-part, Internet-based survey of 835 households was administered in February and March 2010 by Knowledge Networks.
(A hat-tip to Mario!)
Resources
Hilary Nixon and Jean-Daniel Saphores (2011) Understanding Household Preferences for Alternative-Fuel Vehicle Technologies (MTI Report 10-11)
Although the environmental benefits of AFVs are often touted by the media, this characteristic does not seem to be a determinant for consumers when making large purchases, like motor vehicles. Economic concerns are consumers’ priority, so policymakers and manufacturers who would like to increase the market share for AFVs must make environmental issues a greater priority.
This is nonsensical. If economics are the consumer priority - why emphasize environment? What am I missing?
Posted by: Reel$$ | 20 July 2011 at 11:33 AM
They did not ask about getting synthetic gasoline for the same price at the fueling station which has no sulfur nor benzene and is not made from imported oil. THAT is an alternative.
Posted by: SJC | 20 July 2011 at 12:05 PM
Consumers prefer to use gasoline..... come on...we use whatever is available and what is cheaper, not what is preferred.
Whenever ultra quick charge batteries (2 to 5 minutes) are available and can be charged wireless and lower cost power paid for without getting out of the car, that is what people will prefer and get.
Effortless, quicker, cheaper, cleaner etc...we will all be quick;y convinced that is the way to go.
Posted by: HarveyD | 20 July 2011 at 12:44 PM
This highlights the issue of more than 200 million gasoline powered cars on America's highways. It is unrealistic to think everyone will change to something else in a short period of time. If everyone, then how many will? I think most of the data would indicate a few percent during this decade.
Posted by: SJC | 20 July 2011 at 03:45 PM
This IS nonsensical. You aren't missing anything, they are.
" in particular, educating the public about the advantages of AFVs and the public health impacts of pollution from current vehicles will be necessary to increase support for AFVs."
Sounds maybe OK?
No.
If I "buy american", put solar cells on my roof, drive and EV - there is no detectible effect.
It's like a voluntary income tax system - laughable.
If there is a national security issue, the national government must take action; gas taxes, CAFE, rebates or etc.
If there is NOT a national security risk then convince the public as best you can, and if you cannot; don't say they were braiwashed by those who don't buy into your dream.
As for this "the government must educate the people" BS, the government IS (supposed to be) the people.
If the government IS NOT the people, that's the problem.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 20 July 2011 at 07:34 PM
Hilary Nixon and Jean-Daniel Saphores of The Mineta Transportation Institute - methinks these two are off their meds.
Posted by: Reel$$ | 21 July 2011 at 12:58 PM