Abstract
The driving range of FCV and BEV is often analyzed by simple analogy to conventional vehicles without proper consideration of differences in energy storage technology, infrastructure, and market context. This study proposes a coherent framework to optimize the driving range by minimizing costs associated with range, including upfront storage cost, fuel availability cost for FCV and range anxiety cost for BEV. It is shown that the conventional assumption of FCV range can lead to overestimation of FCV market barrier by over $8000 per vehicle in the near-term market. Such exaggeration of FCV market barrier can be avoided with range optimization. Compared to the optimal BEV range, the 100-mile range chosen by automakers appears to be near optimal for modest drivers, but far less than optimal for frequent drivers. With range optimization, the probability that the BEV is unable to serve a long-trip day is generally less than 5%, depending on driving intensity. Range optimization can help diversify BEV products for different consumers. It is also demonstrated and argued that the FCV/BEV range should adapt to the technology and infrastructure developments.