Analyse coûts / bénéfices : application au véhicule électrique (1/2)

Loading...

En provenance du cours de École des Ponts ParisTech

Mobilités et véhicules électriques

33 notes

École des Ponts ParisTech

Mobilités et véhicules électriques

33 notes

L’objectif de ce MOOC est d’aider ses apprenants, quel que soit leur profil, leur formation ou leur pays d’origine, à construire une réponse personnelle à des questions comme celles-ci : - Les voitures électriques seront-elles les dernières à circuler dans les métropoles du XXI° siècle ? - Le gain environnemental associé à l’électrification des véhicules justifie-t-il des investissements massifs dans les infrastructures de charge ? - Le véhicule électrique est-il réservé aux riches des pays du Nord ? Grâce à ce MOOC, les participants pourront acquérir des connaissances issues des sciences de l’ingénieur, de la sociologie, des sciences de l’environnement, de l’économie, de la géographie et des sciences politiques pour évaluer, analyser et mettre en œuvre le déploiement des véhicules électriques là où il est pertinent. Le Groupe Renault et les écoles de ParisTech collaborent depuis bientôt 15 ans sur des sujets liés à la mobilité durable. Ensemble, ils ont créé deux Masters (Transport et développement durable en 2004, Mobilité et véhicules électriques en 2010) et l’Institut de la Mobilité Durable (IMD), en 2009, pour accompagner les mutations en cours. Le MOOC Mobilités et véhicules électriques est issu de cette histoire commune et a été élaboré à partir d'un cours délivré au sein du Master Mobilités et Véhicules Électriques, piloté par Arts et Métiers ParisTech en partenariat avec Ensta ParisTech, Mines ParisTech et l’École des Ponts ParisTech. Ce cours est en français, cependant des sous-titres en anglais sont disponibles pour toutes les vidéos et vous pouvez écrire vos messages dans le forum en anglais si vous le désirez./ This course is given in French, nevertheless English subtitles are available for all videos and you can write your posts in the forum in English if desired.

À partir de la leçon

Chapitre 3 - Analyse économique

<p>Nous utiliserons dans ce chapitre l'analyse économique pour éclairer le choix entre voiture thermique et électrique. </p><p>Après avoir présenté dans les <em>Points méthode</em> quelques outils et concepts d'analyse économique, nous utiliserons ce cadre analytique pour évaluer les coûts et les gains associés à l'électrification du parc automobile, du point de vue des acheteurs comme de celui de la société, en tenant compte à la fois du coût des batteries, des infrastructures de charge, des gains en termes environnementaux et des modifications de recettes fiscales pour l'État.<br/> Puis nous évoquerons les enjeux macroéconomiques du véhicule électrique, avant de nous intéresser à la demande et au potentiel de demande de véhicule électrique à l'échelle microéconomique.</p><p>Le chapitre se conclut bien entendu par une évaluation sous forme de quiz. Cette évaluation ne porte que sur les vidéos de cours et est notée.</p>

Analyse coûts / bénéfices : application au véhicule électrique (1/2)9:12

Analyse coûts / bénéfices : application au véhicule électrique (2/2)12:17

Le saviez-vous ? L'effet distorsif des taxes5:47

Le saviez-vous ? Le taux de couverture3:43

Rencontrer les enseignants

Virginie BOUTUEIL
Researcher
LVMT (City Mobility Transport Lab), École des Ponts ParisTech
Émeric FORTIN
Head of the Master in Transport and Sustainable Development
Direction of Studies, École des Ponts ParisTech

-In order to gauge the benefits

of electric over thermal vehicles,

we will use a cost/benefit analysis

which will bring down to a single economic dimension

all the aspects which separate the two vehicles.

Both types of vehicles have different levels of noise,

greenhouse gas and pollutant emissions,

as well as cost structures

since electric vehicles require batteries and a charging station.

By transforming these dimensions into one economic dimension

through monetarization,

we will be able to compare thermal and electric vehicles

for all dimensions.

How are we going to draw this comparison?

First, we will calculate the total cost of ownership

for either vehicle to see if throughout its lifespan,

an electric car is cheaper than a thermal car.

You can review the video dealing with the total cost of ownership is.

Then, we will use monetarization and assign an economic value

to the gains, be they environmental or otherwise.

We do not need new studies

since the French Ministry for Transport

or the European Commission gives us tutelary values,

which must be used in economic calculations

to put a value on environmental externalities.

When it comes to noise,

the value depends on where and when the noise is produced.

The more people are impacted, the higher the value.

With pollution, we will evaluate the public health costs,

so we need to understand how the pollutants interact,

as well as their isolated effects on our healths

to precisely determine the value. Then, we can assign a value.

For climate change,

a European market gives us the price of one tonne of CO2

but it does not match the social value,

which is tied to all consequences of climate change.

So the reference values recommended by the Quinet report

are 32 euros a tonne as of 2010

to converge progressively toward 100 euros a tonne by 2030,

which is the reference value recommended by the Stern review.

The last question is tied to accidentology.

Both types of vehicles do not produce the same behaviors.

An electric car leads to a more peaceful driving

and probably fewer accidents.

How can this decrease in accidents be valued?

We have to assign a value to human life.

This value's only purpose is to help us be rational and consistent

in our decisions.

When should a crossroads be made safer?

Or when should public money be spent to implement charging stations

for electric vehicles?

How is this value determined? Either through an economic approach

by valuing the loss of production caused by an early death,

or a legal approach,

by using the value assigned by the courts to suffering damages.

Or we can reveal the value of past public decisions

in order to make them consistent over time.

What are the recommendations regarding the value of human life?

The Quinet report suggests 3 million euros in case of an accident.

However, early death is not the only consequence of externalities.

It could be a decrease in lifespan caused by pollution.

Then, we should use a value of life year,

which is 115 000 euros for every year lost.

On the same basis, we can determine

the cost of minor or serious injuries in case of accidents.

One sensitive issue methodologically speaking

to perform a cost/benefit analysis

of the electrification of the fleet of vehicles

is the discount rate.

You can also review the video dealing with the discount rate.

It refers to expressing the current equivalent

of a future value.

On this graph, you can see

the 8% discounted value of 100 000 euros.

In other words,

what do I believe is the current equivalent of 100 000 euros

10, 20, 40, 50 years from now.

Here we have an 8% discount

which was the rate for public spending calculations until 2004 in France.

This rate makes sense in many countries,

where inflation may be slightly higher than in Europe.

It leads to strongly minimizing what will happen in the future.

100 000 euros 10 years from now is the same as 46 000 euros today.

To prevent 100 000-euro damages 10 years from now,

I will only have to invest 46 319 euros today.

The further away I look,

the lower the discount rate draws the economic value of an incident.

To prevent a 100 000-euro damage 50 years from now,

with an 8% rate, I will only have to invest 2 132 euros today.

If we choose a completely different discount rate,

for instance, the one picked by Stern

in his review on the costs of climate change,

which was 1.4%, it changes everything.

As we can see, one event which takes place 10 years from now,

has a value almost twice as high as with an 8% discount rate.

When I look 50 years from now,

an event will have a value 20 to 30 times as high.

When talking about climate change with long-term consequences,

using a 1.4% discount rate will allow us

to adapt our policies to take climate change into account

and assign a better value to any loss associated with climate change

which will occur in 30, 40 or 50 years.

Nowadays, in France,

the discount rate is usually 4% over 20 years and then 2%,

which gives us

the light blue curve.

Compared to the 8% rate which was used until 2004,

an event 50 years from now will have a value 10 times higher.

And the Quinet report recommends

an adjusted discount rate depending on the risks

of around 4.5% per year,

which is an intermediate solution.

This will have a strong impact on how we will quantify

the benefits associated with the electrification of the car

related to public health, greenhouse gases, accidentology and noise.

Lastly, some things are not valued

but make turning to electrification more interesting.

First, if we have to face more intense or faster climate change than expected

or a strong rise in oil prices,

we will be glad to have electric cars and their charging stations

to forego the use of thermal cars.

This is the option value of electric cars tied to the flexibility

they will offer us in the future in case of climate or economic shocks.

We could also value the interest of electrification

to reduce our energy dependence

which keeps our hands tied geopolitically

with the countries we import fossil fuels from.

Lastly, some effects are connected with taxes.

Part of the government revenue is tied to fuel.

When we go from thermal cars to electric cars,

this revenue will decrease and need to be offset by other revenue

which will not be neutral.

I am done with the first part of this video

on cost/benefit analyses applied to electric cars.

To conclude this section on methodology,

monetization is very useful

to bring back to one dimension, the economic dimension,

different environmental and societal aspects.

The fact that ministries for transport give us tutelary values to use

makes it easier for us

and allows us to compare the studies made with the reference values.

However, in a cost/benefit analysis, some things cannot be valued

or the relevance of some reference values may be questionable.

So we must be able to interpret qualitatively the results.

In the second half, I will present a study

which uses the reference values to explain

why it would be interesting to electrify a range of vehicles.

Explorer notre catalogue

Rejoignez-nous gratuitement et obtenez des recommendations, des mises à jour et des offres personnalisées.

Coursera propose un accès universel à la meilleure formation au monde, en partenariat avec des universités et des organisations du plus haut niveau, pour proposer des cours en ligne.

© 2018 Coursera Inc. Tous droits réservés.

Télécharger dans l'App Store

Disponible sur Google Play