Individual Mobility by Shared Autonomous
Electric Vehicle Fleets
Cost and CO2 comparison with internal combustion engine vehicles in Berlin, Germany
G. Fournier
Institute for Industrial Ecology
Pforzheim University of Applied Sciences
Pforzheim, Germany
guy.fournier@hs-pforzheim (corresponding author)
M. Baumann
Universidade Nova de Lisboa –
Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, Portugal
Abstract—The current mobility paradigm is based on
cheap fossil fuel energy, high CO2 emissions and individual
mobility. This paradigm faces economic, ecological and social
limits. The aim of this paper is to analyse if a shared
autonomous Electric Vehicles (EVs) fleet can meet these
challenges and at the same time satisfy the current
requirements of privately owned Internal Combustion Engine
Vehicles (ICEVs). Therefore, analytical models have been
developed to compute the fleet size and to simulate and
investigate impacts on mobility behaviour in Berlin, Germany.
The collected data were used to calculate cost effects, the
energy consumption and the carbon footprint of different
shared autonomous EVs in comparison with privately owned
ICEVs. The approach shows that the system of a shared
autonomous EV fleet could lower journey time, reduce CO2
emissions, free up parking space in urban areas and generate
cost benefits for customers.
Keywords— sustainable mobility, urban mobility, future
mobility, low carbon economy, electric vehicles, autonomous
vehicles, powertrain, sharing economy, mobility service,
servitization, frugal innovation
I. INTRODUCTION
The current mobility paradigm is based on cheap fossil
fuel energy, high CO2 emissions and individual mobility.
Due to external costs of mobility like pollution, congestion,
global warming etc. this paradigm will reach environmental,
economic and social limits and trigger a change in political
frameworks and, together with technological progress, drive
the change to a more sustainable mobility [1]. Innovations
can open opportunities and provide an answer to these
challenges.
The research question of this article is to analyse if
autonomous Electric Vehicle (EV) fleets could be such an
innovation and meet the aforementioned mobility challenges
and provide a sustainable solution to fulfil mobility needs in
978-1-5386-0774-9/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE
C. Pfeiffer
Business Administration and Engineering
Pforzheim University of Applied Sciences
Pforzheim, Germany
R. Wörner
Institute for sustainable mobility and energy storage
Esslingen University of Applied Sciences
Esslingen, Germany
cities. The substitution of individual vehicles will thus be
simulated to clarify if autonomous EVs can be beneficial in
terms of costs, customer service, CO2 emissions and parking
spaces in comparison with the current situation.
To do so, the relation to existing theories and work will
first be drawn. In a second step the interdisciplinary method
will be explained in order to finally analyse and discuss the
results of the simulation.
II. RELATION TO EXISTING THEORIES AND WORK
Autonomous Electric Vehicle (EV) fleets are not a
vision of a far future anymore [2]. This concept combines
innovations in new electric powertrains, car sharing and
autonomous driving. A service provider offers a shared
autonomous fleet with the purpose of picking up customers
after they request a trip via phone call, mobile internet or
smartphone app. In this context the customer communicates
the time and location of departure, destination and chooses a
specific purpose vehicle for his trip. This concept follows
the conditions of contemporary taxicabs with the difference
that all privately owned vehicles are replaced by a shared
autonomous fleet of electric vehicles. The used shuttles in
the simulation have no internal combustion engines (ICE)
anymore and are equipped with autonomous driving
technology. The idea is to combine innovations in
powertrains, in the sharing economy and in autonomous
vehicles to evaluate economic impact and the impact on
global warming [3], [4], [5], [6] . Mobility services would
replace vehicle ownership. Vehicles today are just used
2.6 % of the time for driving. Autonomous taxis are one
solution besides ride sharing, peer to peer car rental, car
sharing, Vehicle to Grid (using EVs in parking time to e.g.
provide ancillary services) etc. to raise the productive use of
assets and time [1], [7]. Using a fleet of autonomous EVs as
a mobility service could indeed raise the rate of use of cars
368
and thus lower the number of vehicle needed, save money,
CO2 emissions and parking spaces. The fusion of
technologies for connected products and e-mobility could
consequently accelerate the servitization process and
improve quality of life without increasing consumption [8],
[9].
Scientists from `Columbia University´ developed a
methodology for a calculation of the economic performance
of such an autonomous EV mobility system and applied it in
different areas of the United States. This investigation
demonstrates the dependency of the fleet size on different
parameters of mobility behaviour of the customers and the
geographical circumstances in the analysed area: The size of
the area, the requested trips per day, the average route
length of the trip, the average speed of the vehicle in traffic,
the street layout and the average time of boarding and exit
of the passengers. The resulting data of this project
demonstrates differences between rural and urban areas. The
analytical application of a shared autonomous EV fleet for
Ann Arbor, Michigan (285,000 inhabitants) shows that the
cost per trip- mile of 0.41 $ would reduce the costs
compared to the ownership of a private car for an average
utilization of 10,000 miles per year by 54%. For Babcock
Ranch, Florida (50,000 inhabitants) the average cost per
mile is 0.57 $. [10]
III. RESEARCH APPROACH
The aforementioned autonomous shuttle based car
sharing mobility system of [10] has been transposed to a
simulation model for Berlin, Germany. To evaluate the
sustainability of the solution, the featured model has been
extended to calculate not only the economic impact but also
the possible ecological impact. Therefore the cost- benefit
ratio and the CO2 balance have been analysed. To do so, the
fleet size to replace the individual vehicles, the waiting time
and the trip time have first been estimated. The costs of
privately owned ICEVs were then compared to a shared
autonomous EV fleet. The energy consumption and partial
carbon footprint using a well-to-wheel approach between
privately owned ICEVs and a shared autonomous EV fleet
were then measured.
The methodology used to determine the performance of
a shared autonomous fleet for costs, energy consumption
and partial carbon footprint is based on a simulation model.
The approach includes the calculation of the fleet size and
further key figures which provide a sufficient amount of
data to compare BEVs with ICEVs.
A. Method: calculation of fleet size, waiting time and trip
time
The fundamental challenge of a shared autonomous fleet
is to find a balance between the amount of autonomous
electric vehicles and the waiting time a customer has to
expect until a requested shuttle arrives. The reasonable time
for passengers to wait is on the one hand dependent on the
purpose and circumstances of the personal transportation, on
the other hand on the waiting times of additional mobility
concepts e.g. taxicabs, the subway, bus or private car. To
calculate the performance and fleet size of a shared vehicle
system for Berlin the analytical method developed by
`Columbia University´, USA has been used. It is assumed
that all performed trips of the provider take place within a
defined area within a trip rate per day. Furthermore the
calculation assumes an average trip distance and an average
trip time. Vehicles drive with an average speed and
customers need a given time for entry and exit processes.
Finally, a fleet size to fulfil all requests with a given
performance is needed. The supply of a shuttle starts with a
request and follows a strict scheme which has to be
executed by computers and supported by service employees
of a provider. The given procedure is as follows:
1. A trip request can be submitted at a random time
within the defined area. In the course of this, the customer
can order a drive via smartphone app, mobile internet or
telephone at a service station. To fulfil the needed technical
requirements an infrastructure with a continuous GPS signal
has to be established. This signal is needed to locate the
position of a possible passenger and to comprehend the
route of active shuttles. Another needed technology is the
mobile internet. This guarantees a data transfer of needed
information between customer, shuttle and service provider.
In this way shuttles have the opportunity to communicate
and to coordinate the sequence of requests and to improve
routes by receiving and sending real time traffic information
[11].
2. After a trip request the system scans through all idle
and in- service vehicles and determines which one can reach
the customer first. For the calculation of the fleet size in
relation to customer wait time the method distinguishes
between the supply of an idle vehicle that has got no active
drive between trip order and entry of the customer. After a
real-time calculation by mainframe a shuttle has to become
combined to a request.
3. After a shuttle ends its current trip, it either directly
fulfils the next trip request which has been assigned by
central control or switches into an inactive condition and
waits for a new order.
4. If the battery of an EV is discharged it uses a
supercharger of the provider or an autonomous maintenance
vehicle which replaces the discharged battery. [12]
To compute the requirements and circumstances within
this model various mathematical and statistical approaches
have been used. The probability is needed that an in-service
vehicle ends its current trip and reaches the customer faster
than an idle vehicle to compute which shuttle should pick
the customer up. In the first step the average number of
inactive vehicles has been calculated. Based on this the
expected empty travel distance and time for the closest idle
vehicle has been considered. Furthermore an expected
radius has to be defined in which an in-service vehicle has
to be located for that request which would be fulfilled faster
than by an inactive idle vehicle. The probability of a faster
delivery by a current in-service vehicle has been constructed
with the rate at which trips end within this radius. To
369
receive the total waiting time and travel distance the this period is 60,000 km (15,000 km/a). Cost parameters are
different values for idle and in- service vehicles have been distinguished according to fixed costs, operating costs,
calculated taking into consideration the specific workshop costs and costs for loss of value. [13]
probabilities of which shuttle reaches the position of a Fixed costs result out of periodical expenditures
customer first. Another important indicator of the regardless of whether a car is used or not. This includes
performance of the fleet is the average workload. In this liability insurance with unlimited cover and fully
context it is required to have the possibility to fulfil all trip comprehensive insurance which are both based on standard
requests during daytimes with high capacity but to achieve a rates of ADAC car insurance without special discounts.
minimum of needed vehicles. [10] Also the specific vehicle tax for Germany was calculated
taking into consideration tax exemption of EVs. Estimating
average costs for parking, maps, main and exhaust gas
B. Method: cost comparison between privately owned examination and equipment a flat rate of 200€ per year have
ICEVs and a shared autonomous EV fleet been assumed.
Different car type categories have been formed with the Operating costs include everything caused by driving
aim of finding a realistic basis for the cost calculation of operations. There, the average price of fuel (diesel: 1.302€/l
shared autonomous vehicles. German demand for ICEVs in [14]; petrol: 1.4912 €/l [15]; energy: 0.2466 €/ kWh [16])
2016 [13], [14] was therefore taken and categorised in 4 between 2012 and 2016 for Germany in combination with
segments. Category 1 reproduces current mini and small consumption data of vehicles has been used [17], [18].
class vehicles. Compact class, medium class, SUVs and Besides refill costs for motor oil and Ad Blue as well as a
vans are in category 2. To comply with requirements to flat rate of 250€ per year for car wash and care have been
transport small group particularities of utilities, terrain considered [13].
caravans and caravans were merged in category 3. Category Costs for oil change and inspections are based on
4 should substitute upper medium class, upper class and informational data by car manufacturers. Besides average
sports cars. Vehicle categories are differentiated by the wear repairs of each segment and tire replacement according
maximum number of passengers (2-10), the purpose to factory information are included.
(transport in urban area) and particularities, e.g. specific Finally, an important cost component of privately owned
possibilities for business customers (see table I). These four vehicles is the loss of value during ownership. These losses
categories were then applied to the shared autonomous EV have been derived from official data of `Deutsche
fleet in order to reproduce the mobility needs in our model Automobil Treuhand´ (DAT) as well as a flat rate for
and the different costs in a realistic way. approval and transfer of 500€ per vehicle.
Considering the need for technology (e.g. laser sensors,
TABLE I: EV categories within the shared autonomous fleet radar sensors, stereo camera, information and
EV Share in Number Correspondi Purpose Particularity communication technology) for autonomous driving costs of
categ. EV fleet of ng ICEV 5,000 € per vehicle for the EV fleet have been used [11].
passenge class
rs
This calculation is based on a statement by Dirk Hoheisel,
Mini, Public Simple managing director of Robert Bosch GmbH, where he
1 27% 2 small class transport in equipment predicts a reduction in this equipment cost to 3,000 – 5,000€
urban area by 2020 because of customer needs and the willingness of
Compact Public Adjusted to the automotive industry [19].
class, transport in transport of
2 56% 5 medium urban areas families Besides operating costs and intra cooperative costs have
class, SUVs, also been calculated to compare costs between private
vans ownership of ICEVs and the use of a shared autonomous
Utilities, Public Possibility to EV fleet within a realistic customer price range. In this
terrain transport business
3 9% 10
caravans, of small conferences context a share of 20% in reference to the turnover has been
caravans groups assumed for administration and distribution while 10% of
Upper Transport Luxury turnover has been prescribed for operative developing costs
medium of business equipment; of the information technology sector. Besides, the rate of
4 8% 5 class, upper customers integrated
class, sports working places
return on sales should reach more than 5%. To find a
cars common output basis time and distance based components
have been converted to costs per km considering 365 days
of use per year and a maximum distance per vehicle per
A survey by the German automotive association lifetime of 250,000 km.
`Allgemeine Deutsche Automobil- Club e.V.´ (ADAC) in New research shows that in the near future costs for EVs
2016 has been used where 1,800 new EV and ICE vehicles will potentially decrease by 2023 or 2024 to the current
were included to consider different cost components. Within level of ICEVs [20], [21], [22]. This corresponds to the
this average calculation it is assumed that a vehicle is used expectation of reducing prices for battery packages by 2020
for four years after resale. The average driving distance for of more than 50% in comparison to 2015 developing a

370
similar trend by 2030 [23]. In relation to this quota a Consumption measurements of automotive
scenario 2025 analysis has been developed which assumes a manufacturers are based on roller test stands within the
reduction in the basic price of the vehicles. `New European Driving Cycle´. In view of considering real
life energy [fuel] consumption and CO2 emissions in
C. Method: comparison of energy consumption and partial
comparison to the stated values real world experience has
carbon footprint between privately owned ICEVs and a
been applied. Therefore, consumer data has been used to
shared autonomous EV fleet
find an average value for each car segment [17], [18]. For
To compare the energy efficiency and the pure CO2 that reason the well-to-wheel approach shows a realistic
emissions between the use of privately owned internal concentration of the current and future CO2 emissions based
combustion engine vehicles and the shared autonomous fleet on the total energy consumption for ICEVs and EVs. To
with electric engine vehicles a well-to-wheel approach has find a common basis between EVs and ICEVs a maximum
been used [24], [25]. This process is divided into a well-to- performance of 250,000km per vehicle was assumed, as
tank and a tank-to-wheel analysis. The well-to-tank mentioned beforehand.
approach investigates the processes of producing,
transporting and distributing of a considered product [26].
That includes on the one hand the capture of the energy IV. FINDINGS
consumption in relation to the manufacturing processes of
the vehicles used in mobility systems. On the other hand A. Fleet size, waiting time and trip time
production processes for the energy supply have also been Based on the described method in chapter III data of
analysed. This involves all processes around oil production mobility behaviour of Berlin has been used to calculate the
and refinery and ends with the logistics and delivery size of a shared autonomous EV fleet. Therefore 88.4% of
activities at gas stations related to the combustion engines the population of Berlin belongs to a mobile society which
[27]. In a tank-to-wheel approach the energy consumption implements a change of location on average working days
of the use phase and the resulting CO2 emissions by (Monday- Friday). 3,111,680 of 3,520,000 inhabitants are
combustion processes have been explored. mobile in Berlin. In combination with the main means of
The required amount of energy for vehicles and fuel transport and the use of cars there is an average amount of
production directly influences the CO2 emissions if 2,671,066 trips per day for Berlin which serves as starting
electricity is supplied by the German grid which uses fossil- point for the calculation of the shared autonomous fleet size
fuelled power stations alongside nuclear power and (see table II). [31]
renewable sources. In the use phase the produced emissions
through electricity generation units are only relevant for
EVs because of the necessity for battery charging via the TABLE II: Mobility behaviour of Berlin [31]
public electric grid. In this context the CO2 emissions for Investigation Value Unit
Numbers about Berlin
both engine technologies are directly dependent on the Population 3,520,000 inhabitants
energy mix of the local energy providers. Therefore, a Mobile population 3,111,680 inhabitants
scenario analysis was carried out which distinguished Mobility behaviour
different compositions of electricity provision for the future: Average trip rate of mobile
1) Scenario 1 (26% renewable energy sources (RES)) population 3.4 trips per day
Average trip distance 6.9 km per trip
considers the current German energy mix based on the Average trip time 24 min/ trip
values of 2013 [28]. Degree of motorization 35.8 %
2) For Scenario 2 (45% RES) the calculation assumes a Main transport group
share of renewable energy of 45 % and 55 % of fossil By foot 31 [964,620] % [inhabitants]
energy until 2025 taking into account that the German 12.5
Bicycle [388,960] % [inhabitants]
government decided a phase out of nuclear power by 2022
26.9
onwards [29]. Public Transportation [837,041] % [inhabitants]
3) In scenario 3 (60% RES) the energy consists of 60 % Motorised Individual 29.6
renewable and 40 % fossil energy until 2035. The different Transport [921,057] % [inhabitants]
combination of energy sources refers to the aims of the Vehicle usage
Trip rate 2.9 per day per person
German ministry of economy and ecology where key Average trip distance 8.8 km per trip
indicators of prospective German energy efficiency were Average trip time 22.7 min/ trip
defined [30]. Average speed 6.46 m/ s
4) To show the possible improvements in energy Total trip rate Berlin 2,671,066 trips per day
efficiency in form of an energy supply without any fossil
fuels in scenario 4 (100% RES) the energy consumption and Regarding the course of trips during the day the greatest
CO2 emissions for a 100% share of renewable energy was frequency occurs between 7:01 and 8:00 a.m. where 9% of
investigated. This is already realistic today as most of the transportation activities take place. During this time 82,896
charging stations for EVs already provide renewable energy. cars move around in the city simultaneously. Therefore the

371
minimum fleet size has to be above this capacity in order to
be able to satisfy all customer requests.
Thus, in order to have enough capacity to fulfil all
mobility requests currently performed with cars in the area
of 892 km2 a fleet size of 120,118 shared autonomous EVs
is needed. In this context the system achieves an average
workload of 100% that causes a waiting time according to a
customer request of 34.2 minutes. Because of an
exponential relation between customer waiting time and
fleet size this value can be effectively reduced by an
increase in the fleet to 130,000 EVs. This concludes an
average waiting time of 42.54 seconds taking into account
regularly distributed trip times and request positions (see
Fig. 1). At the same time a workload of 91.03 % can be
achieved that enables prospective fluctuations in requests.
Due to the quantity of 11,660 inactive shuttles, maintenance
work and battery charging activities during peak times are
possible. Simultaneously, likelihood of vehicle failures and
the risk of losing availability of the service decrease.
This performance of the fleet is possible through a
random assignment of different vehicle types to customers.
If customer would like to have the four vehicle categories
they have today, this will impact the vehicle fleet size:
171,000 BEVs will then be needed to have an average wait
time of 42 seconds.
As a consequence, the number of vehicles in Berlin
(approximately 1,260,000) can be reduced by 1,130,000
vehicles (- 89.6 %). This makes it possible to free up a
surface of 13.5 km2 in Berlin, assuming that a parking area
has to provide 12 m2 per vehicle. This corresponds to 1,255
soccer fields
Ϯ͕Ϭ
ϭ͕ϴ
ϭ͕ϲ
Waiting time in min
ϭ͕ϰ
ϭ͕Ϯ
ϭ͕Ϭ
Ϭ͕ϴ
Ϭ͕ϲ
Ϭ͕ϰ
Ϭ͕Ϯ
Ϭ͕Ϭ
fleet size in vehicles
Fig. 1: Customer waiting time in dependence of fleet size
The driving time could also be lowered for the customer.
It is known that currently the productive use of a vehicle
amounts to 2.6% for driving as mentioned before, 0.8% for
looking for parking and 0.5% for sitting in congestion. 96%
of the time the car is parked [32].Using an intelligent shared
autonomous EV mobility service could consequently avoid
the time to look for parking and time in congestions. The
time of a journey could thus be reduced by 33.3 %. The
waiting time for a requested shuttle was not taken into
account in this calculation because it corresponds
approximately to the time needed to go to the parking place
when the driver has an own vehicle.
B. Cost potentials of a shared autonomous EV fleet
Considering the whole shared autonomous fleet of
130,000 vehicles the average price for customers is 0.26 €/
km. In comparison with the cost of ownership of current
ICEVs (0.65 €/ km) the whole potential of the system is a
cost reduction of 60% (see Fig. 2). In view of a total
performance of 250,000 km the average time of use is 3.7
years per vehicle which results from a high degree of
capacity utilisation in contrast to ICEVs.
0,70
0,60
Total costs in €/ km
0,50
- 60% - 63%
0,40
0,30
0,20
0,10
0,00
ICEV EV EV
scenario 2025
Fig. 2: Average total cost comparison between private owned ICEVs and
shared autonomous EVs for customers
Regarding the different EV categories (1-4) within the
fleet as shown in chapter III there are different cost saving
potentials for each category. The financial indicators for the
whole fleet have been calculated by the use of a weighted
average considering the current ICEV share of each segment
(see table III).
In this context, the cost composition has been derived
from different current EVs. For category 1 technical and
cost side specifications of a Nissan Leaf Visia 30 kWh have
been used for calculation. The car uses a battery package
with a capacity of 30 kWh and generates a power of 80 kW.
In relation to tests of the ADAC the average combined
consumption is 20.39 kWh/ km [13]. With the accumulation
of all costs for purchase, use and business processes there
are distance based costs per km of 0.19 € and time based
costs per day of 24.67 € for every EV without taking
customer influence into consideration (see table III).
To compare these costs with private ownership of
current ICEVs new registrations of cars in 2016 have been
analysed. In this context the share of the segments mini and
small cars which can be replaced by EV category 1 is
27.13%. Based on ADAC cost calculations the average
costs for the combination of minis and small cars is 0.42 €.
372
TABLE III: Cost derivation of different EV categories a 24 kWh battery package [33]. The engine provides a
category category category category maximum power of 80 kW consuming 22.8 kWh/ 100 km
Characteristics 1 2 3 4
Number of vehicles 35,272 73,751 11,490 9,486 based on ADAC data. Overall there are distance based costs
[share in fleet (%)] [27] [56] [9] [8] of 0.23 €/ km and time based costs of 25.29 €/a per day (see
Energy consumption
20.39 20.39 22.8 24.2
table III). The average costs for utilities, terrain caravans
(kWh/ 100 km) and caravans have been used to compare an autonomous
Fixed costs (€/
vehicle)
fleet with ICEVs (0.79 €/km). The proportion of these
Basis price 29,265 29,265 37,602 69,019 segments is 8.8% which implies an amount of EVs of
Basis price scenario 11,490 shuttles. Taking into account customer prices of 0.29
15,700 27,715 30,496 60,713
2025 €/ km by using the shared autonomous fleet service there is
Autonomous driving a cost saving potential of 63% (67% in a scenario 2025
5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
technology
IC Technology 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
analysis on the basis of 0.26 €/km).
Financing (interest Finally, for the calculation of category 4 a Tesla Model
1,713 1,713 2,130 3,701
rate: 5%) S 60 has been used as the reference car [34]. The vehicle has
Operative costs a 60 kWh battery package installed providing a maximum
Additional fixed power of 228 kW. The energy consumption for the car is
1,260 1,260 1,116 2,748
costs (€/a)
Maintenance (€/a) 588 588 540 1,752
24.2 kWh in reference to ADAC tests. All in all there are
Variable costs distance based costs of 0.36 €/ km and 37.38 €/ d time based
Basis energy price costs (see table III). In reference to higher class ICEVs the
0.2466 0.2466 0.2466 0.2466
(€/ kWh) average costs of upper medium class, upper class and sport
Energy price [€/ 100 cars have been used. In this context the ownership costs are
5.78 5.78 6.47 6.86
km)
Administrative 1.53 €/ km and the share of this segment is 7.2 %. In
costs (€/a) transfer to the shared autonomous fleet 9,486 EVs of
Distribution and category 4 are needed. Considering a price of 0.44 €/ km for
Administration 2,962 2,962 2,962 2,962 the use of the fleet there is a cost potential of 71%.
(20 % of turnover)
IT department (5%
Regarding the scenario 2025 analysis 73% are possible in
741 741 741 741 the future (at a cost of 0.41 €/ km).
of turnover)
Profit margin (5% of 1,80
741 741 741 741
turnover)
1,60
In relation to a fleet size of 130,000 EVs there are 1,40 ICEV EV
Total costs in €/ km

35,272 vehicles which apply to category 1. Considering the 1,20

calculated costs per km for a customer request of 0.24 €
there is a potential of cost reduction of 41% in comparison
with privately owned ICEVs. Under application of a
scenario 2025 analysis regarding the reduction in basic
prices the decreased costs are 0.18 €/ km. Therefore, the
assumed cost reduction to ICEVs is 55% (see Fig. 3).
Due to the satisfactory performance of a Nissan Leaf EV
this model has also been used to calculate the costs for the
shared autonomous fleet of category 2. As a result there are
the same distance based costs of 0.19 €/ km and time based
costs of 24.67 €/d (see table III). Owing to a common
ground of costs for EVs there are differences to
characteristics of ICEVs in this segment. In this context
category 2 replaces current compact class, medium class,
vans and SUVs which occupy a common share of 56.73%.
The average costs for ownership are 0.63 €/ km. When
transferring to the EV fleet there are 73,751 vehicles in
category two, the costs for customers are 0.24 €/ km overall.
Thereby the reduction potential in comparison with
privately owned cars is 61%. Regarding scenario 2025 there
is a decrease in costs of 1,550 € predicted. Therefore costs
for customers drop to 0.24 € conserving 62% in relation to
current ICEVs.
For category 3 of autonomous shuttles a Nissan e-
NV200 EVALIA has been used in reference to a common
base for transporting groups and goods. The utility car uses
1,00
0,80
0,60
0,40
0,20
0,00
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4
Fig. 3: Total cost comparison between privately owned ICEVs and shared
autonomous EVs for customers for different EV categories (see Table I)
C. Energy consumption
The tank-to-wheel results prove that there are significant
benefits in using the EV fleet in comparison to similar
ICEVs regarding energy consumption. The analysed data
shows a reduction potential of 32.06 kWh/ 100 km for
category 1 (-61%). In relation to category 2 the calculated
energy consumption can be reduced by 69 % saving 44.95
kWh/ 100 km. Moreover, tank-to-wheel consumption for
category 3 enables a reduction of 72% (-58.75 kWh/
100km), for category 4 73% (-64.76 kWh/ 100 km). This
leads to an overall energy saving potential of 67% for the
use of a shared autonomous EV fleet in comparison with
current ICE vehicles.

373
 However, regarding the well-to-tank approach as
mentioned in chapter III there is a higher energy
consumption in vehicle manufacturing of EVs (150 GJ) in
comparison to current ICEVs (80 GJ) caused by energy
intensive battery production processes [35]. Due to a
dependency between energy consumption for supply
processes and the consumption caused by the use of the
vehicles the data has been represented in the unit kWh/ 100
km based on a total performance of 250,000 km per vehicle
(EV and ICEV). In this context there is a well-to-tank
energy consumption for ICE vehicles of 44.71 kWh/ 100km
in comparison with 37.55 kWh/ 100km for EVs.
D. Partial carbon footprint
The results show that a shared autonomous EV fleet can
achieve a lower carbon footprint (excluding CO2
equivalents) than current ICEVs in a well-to-wheel analysis.
In scenario 1 (26% RES) already 11% of CO2 emissions can
be saved despite a share of fossil fuels in energy production
of 73% (see Fig. 4).
180
Ͳϭϭй Ͳϭϴй Ͳϯϲй
160
140
CO2eq in g/ km
120
100
80
60
40
20
00
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4
26% RES 45% RES 60% RES 100% RES
(2013) (2025) (2035) (20XX)
Fig. 4: Carbon footprint comparison between privately owned ICEVs and
shared autonomous EVs in relation to the share of renewable energy
sources (RES)
The absolute well-to-wheel CO2 emissions for ICE
vehicles (168.7 g/ km) are 19.87 g/ km higher in comparison
with average EVs using weighted shares of the different car
segments. In regard of a decrease in fossil fuels in energy
supply to 55% which complies with scenario 2 (45% RES)
the CO2 emissions can be reduced with an EV fleet by about
18%. In this context it is assumed that there aren´t only
possibilities for ecologically friendly use and manufacturing
of EVs but also for ICEVs which benefit due to positive
changes in the energy mix, too. In reference to scenario 3
(60% RES) emission savings increase to 40% during a 36%
share of fossil fuels. To represent the maximum capability
of a shared autonomous fleet with EVs a supply of electric
grid with 100% renewable energy has been calculated.
Consequently there aren´t any CO2 emissions caused by the
use of EVs. Moreover, there is a positive impact on the
vehicle production of ICEVs in scenario 4 (100% RES). By
reducing the emissions of EVs in this scenario to 0 g/ km
the reduction potential in comparison to ICEVs becomes
100 % without consideration of emissions caused by
logistics processes for manufacturing (e.g. shipments).
V. CONCLUSION
The simulation of an autonomous EV fleet has shown
that this innovation can meet the mobility challenges of our
societies and provide an answer to the external costs of
mobility which our cities are facing. Introducing a fleet of
around 130,000 autonomous and electric vehicles could thus
cover the mobility needs of Berlin citizens with a waiting
time for customer after a customer request that would be
lower than 1 min. The time for a journey could be reduced
by 33% avoiding the search for parking and congestions.
Furthermore, this service could be cheaper than owning a
car and save more than 60% of the costs per km in 2025.
This can be explained with a better use of the vehicles as an
asset. More than 1 million private cars can be saved through
the better rate of use and thus make journeys more
affordable. Moreover, the CO2 emissions could be lowered
ͲϭϬϬй by 10% using the current German Energy mix or by 35%
when renewables are expected to have a share of 60% by
2035 in Germany. Using these services would then free up a
surface which is larger than 13 km2 and consequently offer
new opportunities for urban design. These results show
similarities in behaviour and cost saving potential in
Germany in comparison with the aforementioned simulation
in the USA. Of course, due to the differences in vehicle
ICEV
fleets in Germany and USA the carbon footprint cannot be
EV
precisely transferred to the USA but advantages could be
expected in the long run, too.
This optimistic view is of course a theoretical
simulation. In reality, a lot of technical, social and economic
obstacles due to induced structural changes will have to be
faced and examined beforehand. The autonomous vehicle
will e.g. be in competition with taxicabs and will not have a
driver anymore but will need more IT skilled workers and
hence necessitate structural labour adjustments. The
business models of Original Equipment Manufacturers
(OEMs) will further be challenged and strong lobbying is
probable. How to ensure more sustainable mobility remains
therefore open and will depend on a new consensus in our
societies between politics, customers, companies,
employees etc. Nevertheless, the described solution shows
that a change in our urban mobility paradigm can be
sustainable and beneficial for Berlin as a whole in terms of
quality of service, individual costs and impact on carbon
dioxide emissions. The model could be easily extended to
other cities.
References
[1] G. Fournier, “The New Mobility Paradigm. Transformation of
Value Chain and Value Proposition Through Innovations,” in The
Automobile Revolution , Springer, 2017, pp. 21-47.
374
[2] K. Lemmer, Neue autoMobilität. Automatisierter Straßenverkehr
der Zukunft (acatech Studie), München: Herbert Utz Verlag, 2016.
[3] A. Attias, The Automobile Revolution, Towards a New Electro-
Mobility Paradigm, Springer, 2017.
[4] M. Felson and S. J. L., “Community Structure and Collaborative
Consumption: A routine activity approach,” in American Behavioral
Scientist, 1978, p. 78.
[5] G. Fournier, R. Seign, V. Goehlich and K. Bogenberger,
“Carsharing with electric vehicles: A contribution to sustainable
mobility?,” in Intersisziplinäre Managementforschung XI.
[6] M. Maurer, J. C. Gerdes, B. Lenz and H. Winner, Autonomous
Driving Technical, Legal and Social Aspects, Berlin: Springer.
[7] G. Fournier, M. Baumann, S. Dittes, F. Lindenlauf and M. Weil,
“V2G und P2G als Bindeglied zwischen Erneuerbaren Energien und
zukünftiger Individualmobilität,” in Entscheidungen beim Übergang
in die Elektromobilität. Technische und wirtschaftliche Aspekte,
Wiesbaden, Springer Gabler, 2015, pp. 115-128.
[8] A. Neely, “Exploring the financial consequences of the sertization
of manufacturing,” in Operations Management Research, Vol.1,
No.2, pp. 103-118.
[9] D. W. O´Neill, “The proximity of nations to a socially sustainabe
steady-state economy,” in Journal of Cleaner Production 108, pp.
1213-1231.
[10] L. D. Burns, W. C. Jordan and B. A. Scarborough, “Transforming
Personal Mobility,” The Earth Institute Columbia University, New
York, 2013.
[11] A. Bößenecker, L. Grolig, Y. Hettich, J. Koller and S. e. a. Langer,
“Autonomisierung von Nutzfahrzeugen und die Anpassung der
bestehenden Verkehrssysteme,” Hochschule Esslingen, Esslingen,
2017.
[12] Next future transportation inc., “Advanced smart transportation
system,” [Online]. Available: http://www.next-future-
mobility.com/analysis. [Accessed 15 March 2017].
[13] ADAC e.V., “ADAC Autokosten,” [Online]. Available:
https://www.adac.de/infotestrat/autodatenbank/autokosten/default.as
px?ComponentId=282164&SourcePageId=287163. [Accessed 26
February 2017].
[14] Statista.de, “Durchschnittlicher Preis für Dieselkraftstoff in
Deutschland,” [Online]. Available:
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/779/umfrage/durchschni
ttspreis-fuer-dieselkraftstoff-seit-dem-jahr-1950/. [Accessed 17
February 2017].
[15] Statista.de, “Durchschnittlicher Preis für Superbenzin in
Deutschland,” [Online]. Available:
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/776/umfrage/durchschni
ttspreis-fuer-superbenzin-seit-dem-jahr-1972/. [Accessed 17
February 2017].
[16] Eprimo GmbH, “Stromtarife in 10115 Berlin,” [Online]. Available:
http://www.verivox.de/strompreisvergleich/vergleich/v2/#?plz=101
15&source=1&q=WzIsMCwwLDEsMCwwLDAsMSwyMCwxLD
EsNTY1Mzk3LCIwIiwxLDEyLDEyLDM1MDAsMCwwLDEyLD
EsNixudWxsLDEsMCwwXQ. [Accessed 17 February 2017].
[17] U. Tietge, P. Mock, N. Zacharof and V. Franco, “Real- world fuel
consumption of popular European passenger car models,” The
international council of clean transportation (icct), 2015.
[18] Fisch und Fischl GmbH, “Spritmonitor- Verbrauchswerte real
erfahren,” [Online]. Available:
https://www.spritmonitor.de/de/suche.html. [Accessed 20 February
2017].
[19] Wirtschaftswoche.de, “Deutsche erwarten Zeitersparnis durch
selbstfahrende Autos,” [Online]. Available:
http://www.wiwo.de/unternehmen/auto/autonomes-fahren-deutsche-
erwarten-zeitersparnis-durch-selbstfahrende-autos/12052642.html.
[Accessed 17 February 2017].
[20] Automobilwoche.de, “E-Autos ab 2023 so günstig wie Benziner,”
[Online]. Available:
http://www.automobilwoche.de/article/20161021/NACHRICHTEN/
161029978/1276/vw-strategievorstand-sedran-e-autos-ab--so-
guenstig-wie-benziner. [Accessed 20 February 2017].
[21] B. (. E. C. Organisation), Low carbon cars in the 2020s, consumer
impacts and EU policy implications, Brüssel, 2016.
[22] R. Randall, “How Electric Cars Will Cause the Next Oil Crisis,”
Bloomberg, 2016. [Online]. Available:
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-ev-oil-crisis/. [Accessed
25 Februrary 25].
[23] Association nationale pour le développement de la mobilité
électrique de France (AVERE), “Voitures électriques : le prix des
batteries a chuté de 80 % en 6 ans,” 02 03 2017. [Online].
Available: http://www.avere-
france.org/Site/Article/?article_id=6885&from_espace_adherent=0.
[Accessed 01 March 2017].
[24] ISO/ TS 14067:2013 (en), “Greenhouse gases- carbon footprint of
products- requirements and guidelines for quantification and
communication,” [Online]. Available:
https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:ts:14067:ed-1:v1:en.
[Accessed 15 March 2017].
[25] DIN EN 16258, “Methode zur Berechnung und Deklaration des
Energieverbrauchs und der Treibhausgasemissionen bei
Transportdienstleistungen (Güter- und Personenverkehr)”.
[26] R. Edwards, L. J-F. and B. J-C., “Well-to-wheels Analysis of Future
Automotive Fuels and Powertrains in the European Context,” 07
2011. [Online]. Available: https://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/about-
jec/sites/iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu.about-
jec/files/documents/wtw3_wtw_report_eurformat.pdf. [Accessed 20
February 2017].
[27] Aral Aktiengesellschaft, “Dieselkraftstoff- Anforderungen, Qualität,
Perspektiven,” [Online]. Available:
http://www.fip.de/fileadmin/user_data/downloads/broschuere/Aral-
Dieselkraftstoff.pdf. [Accessed 09 February 2017].
[28] Umweltbundesamt, “Entwicklung der spezifischen
Kohlenstoffdioxid- Emissionen des deutschen Strommix in den
Jahren 1990 bis 2015,” Dessau- Roßlau, 2016.
[29] Bundesregierung, “Energiewende- Kernkraft,” [Online]. Available:
https://www.bundesregierung.de/Webs/Breg/DE/Themen/Energiew
ende/Fragen-
Antworten/8_Kernkraft/_node.html;jsessionid=D02963E0E7911D1
2DCC229B30B9E46B6.s4t2#doc605176bodyText4. [Accessed 25
February 2016].
[30] Bundesregierunng, “Energiewende- Energie erzeugen,” [Online].
Available:
https://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/StatischeSeiten/Breg/
Energiekonzept/0-Buehne/ma%C3%9Fnahmen-im-ueberblick.html.
[Accessed 01 March 2017].
[31] Technische Universität Dresden, “Tabellenbericht zum
Forschungsprojekt "Mobilität in Städten- SrV 2013" in Berlin,”
Dresden, 2014.
375
[32] McKinsey and Company, “Are you ready for the resource
revolution?,” 2014. [Online]. Available:
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/sustainability/are_you_ready_for
_the_resource_revolution?cid=other-eml-ttn-mkq-mck-oth-1412, .
[Accessed 23 Decembre 2014].
[33] ADAC e.V., “Nissan e-NV200 Kombi,” 03 2015. [Online].
Available: https://www.adac.de/infotestrat/tests/auto-
test/detail.aspx?IDTest=5258. [Accessed 02 March 2017].
[34] ADAC e.V., “Autotest Tesla Model S Performance,” 09 2013.
[Online]. Available:
https://www.adac.de/_ext/itr/tests/Autotest/AT5022_Tesla_Model_
S_Performance/Tesla_Model_S_Performance.pdf. [Accessed 02
March 2017].
[35] N. Warburg, A. Forell, L. Guillon, H. T. Teulon and B. Canaguier,
“Elaboration selon les principes des ACV des bilans energetiques ,
des emissions de gaz a effet de serre et des autres impacts
environnementaux induits par l´ensemble des filieres de vehicules
electriques et de vehicules thermiques, VP de segment,” ADEME
(Agence de l´Environnement et de la Maitresse de l´Energie, 2013.
[36] Statista, “Anteil der stärksten Modellreihe je Segment an den Pkw-
Neuzulassungen in Deutschland im Jahr 2016,” [Online]. Available:
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/317081/umfrage/modellr
eihe-je-segment-anteil-neuzulassungen/. [Accessed 25 January
2017].

376