The Battle between Battery and Fuel Cell Powered Electric Vehicles: A BWM Approach
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theory
3. The Future of Personal Transportation
4. Methods
5. Results
6. Discussion and Conclusions
6.1. Interpretation of the Results
6.2. Contributions
6.3. Limitations and Areas for Future Research
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Shapiro, C.; Varian, H.R. Information Rules, a Strategic Guide to the Network Economy; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Hill, C.W.L. Establishing a standard: Competitive strategy and technological standards in winner-take-all industries. Acad. Manag. Exec. 1997, 11j, 7–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arthur, W.B. Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Econ. J. 1989, 99, 116–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- David, P.A. Clio and the economics of QWERTY. Am. Econ. Rev. 1985, 75, 332–337. [Google Scholar]
- Schilling, M.A. Technological lockout: An integrative model of the economic and strategic factors driving technology success and failure. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 267–284. [Google Scholar]
- Schilling, M.A. Technology success and failure in winner-take-all markets: The impact of learning orientation, timing, and network externalities. Acad. Manag. J. 2002, 45, 387–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suarez, F.F. Battles for technological dominance: An integrative framework. Res. Policy 2004, 33, 271–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van de Kaa, G.; Van den Ende, J.; De Vries, H.J.; Van Heck, E. Factors for winning interface format battles: A review and synthesis of the literature. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2011, 78, 1397–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rezaei, J. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 2015, 53, 49–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van de Kaa, G.; De Vries, H. Factors for winning format battles: A comparative case study. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2015, 91, 222–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van de Kaa, G.; De Vries, H.J.; Rezaei, J. Platform Selection for Complex Systems: Building Automation Systems. J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng. 2014, 23, 415–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van de Kaa, G.; Kamp, L.M.; Rezaei, J. Selection of biomass thermochemical conversion technology in the Netherlands: A best worst method approach. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 166, 32–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van de Kaa, G.; Rezaei, J.; Kamp, L.; De Winter, A. Photovoltaic Technology Selection: A Fuzzy MCDM Approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 32, 662–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van de Kaa, G.; Van Heck, H.W.G.M.; De Vries, H.J.; Van den Ende, J.C.M.; Rezaei, J. Supporting Decision-Making in Technology Standards Battles Based on a Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2014, 61, 336–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rezaei, J.; Wang, J.; Tavasszy, L. Linking supplier development to supplier segmentation using Best Worst Method. Expert Syst. Appl. 2015, 42, 9152–9164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rezaei, J.; Nispeling, T.; Sarkis, J.; Tavasszy, L. A supplier selection life cycle approach integrating traditional and environmental criteria using the best worst method. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 577–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, H.; Barua, M.K. Supplier selection among SMEs on the basis of their green innovation ability using BWM and fuzzy TOPSIS. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 152, 242–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gupta, H.; Barua, M.K. Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian MSMEs using best–worst multi criteria decision making method. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2016, 107, 69–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghaffari, S.; Arab, A.; Nafari, J.; Manteghi, M. Investigation and evaluation of key success factors in technological innovation development based on BWM. Decis. Sci. Lett. 2017, 6, 295–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rezaei, J.; Hemmes, A.; Tavasszy, L. Multi-criteria decision-making for complex bundling configurations in surface transportation of air freight. J. Air Transp. Manag. 2016, 61, 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chitsaz, N.; Azarnivand, A. Water Scarcity Management in Arid Regions Based on an Extended Multiple Criteria Technique. Water Resour. Manag. 2017, 31, 233–250. [Google Scholar]
- Ahmad, W.N.K.W.; Rezaei, J.; Sadaghiani, S.; Tavasszy, L.A. Evaluation of the external forces affecting the sustainability of oil and gas supply chain using Best Worst Method. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 153, 242–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salimi, N. Quality assessment of scientific outputs using the BWM. Scientometrics 2017, 112, 195–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Salimi, N.; Rezaei, J. Measuring efficiency of university-industry Ph.D. projects using best worst method. Scientometrics 2016, 109, 1911–1938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gallagher, S.R. The battle of the blue laser DVDs: The significance of corporate strategy in standards battles. Technovation 2012, 32, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallagher, S.R.; Park, S.H. Innovation and competition in standard-based industries: A historical analysis of the U.S. home video game market. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2002, 49, 67–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schilling, M.A. Technological leapfrogging: Lessons from the U.S. video game console industry. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2003, 45, 6–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cusumano, M.A.; Mylonadis, Y.; Rosenbloom, R.S. Strategic maneuvering and mass-market dynamics: The triumph of VHS over Beta. Bus. Hist. Rev. 1992, 66, 51–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garud, R.; Kumaraswamy, A. Changing Competitive Dynamics in Network Industries: An Exploration of Sun Microsystems’ Open Systems Strategy. Strateg. Manag. J. 1993, 14, 351–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van de Kaa, G.; Van den Ende, J.; De Vries, H.J. Strategies in network industries: The importance of inter-organisational networks, complementary goods, and commitment. Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag. 2015, 27, 73–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farrell, J.; Saloner, G. Standardization, compatibility, and innovation. Rand J. Econ. 1985, 16, 70–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katz, M.L.; Shapiro, C. Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. Am. Econ. Rev. 1985, 75, 424–440. [Google Scholar]
- Funk, J.L. Competition between regional standards and the success and failure of firms in the world-wide mobile communication market. Telecommun. Policy 1998, 22, 419–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srinivasan, A.; Venkatraman, N. Indirect Network Effects and Platform Dominance in the Video Game Industry: A Network Perspective. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2010, 57, 661–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farrell, J.; Saloner, G. Installed base and compatibility: Innovation, product preannouncements, and predation. Am. Econ. Rev. 1986, 76, 940–955. [Google Scholar]
- Den Uijl, S.; De Vries, H.J. Pushing technological progress by strategic manoeuvring: The triumph of Blu-ray over HD-DVD. Bus. Hist. 2013, 55, 1361–1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, H. Dynamics of Pricing in the Video Game Console Market: Skimming or Penetration? J. Mark. Res. 2010, 47, 428–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Katz, M.L.; Shapiro, C. Technology Adoption in the Presence of Network Externalities. J. Political Econ. 1986, 94, 822–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lieberman, M.B.; Montgomery, D.B. First Mover advantages. Strateg. Manag. J. 1988, 9, 41–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lieberman, M.B.; Montgomery, D.B. First-mover (dis)advantages: Retrospective and link with the resource-based view. Strateg. Manag. J. 1998, 19, 1111–1125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Mierlo, J.; Maggetto, G.; Lataire, P. Which energy source for road transport in the future? A comparison of battery, hybrid and fuel cell vehicles. Energy Convers. Manag. 2006, 47, 2748–2760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Steenberghen, T.; Lopez, E. Overcoming barriers to the implementation of alternative fuels for road transport in Europe. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 577–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Thomas, C.E. Fuel cell and battery electric vehicles compared. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2009, 34, 6005–6020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandy Thomas, C.E. Transportation options in a carbon-constrained world: Hybrids, plug-in hybrids, biofuels, fuel cell electric vehicles, and battery electric vehicles. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2009, 34, 9279–9296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Offer, G.J.; Howey, D.; Contestabile, M.; Clague, R.; Brandon, N.P. Comparative analysis of battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid vehicles in a future sustainable road transport system. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 24–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Energy Information Administration (EIA). Annual Energy Outlook 2015; EIA: Washington, DC, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Gertner, J. Inside Toyota and Tesla’s Duel to Fuel the Cars of the Future. Available online: http://www.fastcompany.com/3033198/duel-for-fuel (accessed on 24 October 2017).
- Tovey, A. Hydrogen or Electric: Which Will Drive Petrol Cars off the Road? Available online: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/engineering/11966944/Hydrogen-or-electric-which-will-drive-petrol-cars-off-the-road.html (accessed on 24 October 2017).
- Lewis, T. Electric vs. Fuel Cell Vehicles: ‘Green’ Auto Tech Explained. Available online: http://www.livescience.com/49594-electric-fuel-cell-vehicles-explainer.html (accessed on 24 October 2017).
- Shirouzu, N.; Lienert, P. INSIGHT-Auto Power Play: Japan’s Hydrogen Car vs. China’s Battery Drive. Available online: http://www.reuters.com/article/autoshow-japan-electric-idUSL3N12M2A920151028 (accessed on 24 October 2017).
- Zubaryeva, A.; Thiel, C.; Barbone, E.; Mercier, A. Assessing factors for the identification of potential lead markets for electrified vehicles in Europe: Expert opinion elicitation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2012, 79, 1622–1637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Bree, B.; Verbong, G.P.J.; Kramer, G.J. A multi-level perspective on the introduction of hydrogen and battery-electric vehicles. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2010, 77, 529–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rezaei, J. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. Omega 2016, 64, 126–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schumpeter, J.A. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1934. [Google Scholar]
- Chalk, S.G.; Miller, J.F. Key challenges and recent progress in batteries, fuel cells, and hydrogen storage for clean energy systems. J. Power Source 2006, 159, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edwards, P.P.; Kuznetsov, V.L.; David, W.I.; Brandon, N.P. Hydrogen and fuel cells: Towards a sustainable energy future. Energy Policy 2008, 36, 4356–4362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mori, D.; Hirose, K. Recent challenges of hydrogen storage technologies for fuel cell vehicles. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2009, 34, 4569–4574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ross, D.K. Hydrogen storage: The major technological barrier to the development of hydrogen fuel cell cars. Vacuum 2006, 80, 1084–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adepetu, A.; Keshav, S. The relative importance of price and driving range on electric vehicle adoption: Los Angeles case study. Transportation 2017, 44, 353–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Axsen, J.; Kurani, K.S.; Burke, A. Are batteries ready for plug-in hybrid buyers? Transp. Policy 2010, 17, 173–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boulanger, A.G.; Chu, A.C.; Maxx, S.; Waltz, D.L. Vehicle electrification: Status and issues. Proc. IEEE 2011, 99, 1116–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perujo, A.; Van Grootveld, G.; Scholz, H. Present and Future Role of Battery Electrical Vehicles in Private and Public Urban Transport. In New Generation of Electric Vehicles; InTech: London, UK, 2012; pp. 3–28. [Google Scholar]
- Steinhilber, S.; Wells, P.; Thankappan, S. Socio-technical inertia: Understanding the barriers to electric vehicles. Energy Policy 2013, 60, 531–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsang, F.; Pedersen, J.S.; Wooding, S.; Potoglou, D. Bringing the Electric Vehicle to the Mass Market, a Review of Barriers, Facilitators and Policy Interventions; RAND Europe: Cambridge, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, S.; Pyke, D.; Steenhof, P. Electric vehicles: The role and importance of standards in an emerging market. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 3797–3806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nemry, F.; Brons, M. Plug-In Hybrid and Battery Electric Vehicles: Market Penetration Scenarios for Electric Drive Vehicles; JRC European Commission: Seville, Spain, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Wittenberg, A. Fast-Charge Plugs Do Not Fit All Electric Cars. Available online: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fast-charge-plugs-do-not-fit-all-electric-cars/ (accessed on 24 October 2017).
- Toyota Fueling the Toyota Mirai. Available online: https://ssl.toyota.com/mirai/Mirai_Fueling.pdf (accessed on 24 October 2017).
- Toyota Toyota Mirai—The Turning Point. Available online: https://ssl.toyota.com/mirai/stations.html (accessed on 24 October 2017).
- Steg, L. Car use: Lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2005, 39, 147–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fox, J.; Axsen, J.; Jaccard, M. Picking Winners: Modelling the Costs of Technology-specific Climate Policy in the US Passenger Vehicle Sector. Ecol. Econ. 2017, 137, 133–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mangram, M.E. The globalization of Tesla Motors: A strategic marketing plan analysis. J. Strateg. Mark. 2012, 20, 289–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wharton Why Tesla May Have the Keys to the Electric Vehicle Market. Available online: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/how-tesla-is-bringing-electric-vehicles-mainstream/ (accessed on 24 October 2017).
- Den Hartigh, E.; Ortt, J.R.; Van de Kaa, G.; Stolwijk, C.C.M. Platform control during battles for market dominance: The case of Apple versus IBM in the early personal computer industry. Technovation 2016, 48–49, 4–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Main Factors (Criteria) | Sub-Criteria | Description |
---|---|---|
Characteristics of the format supporter | Financial strength | The financial means with which a strategy may be pursued. Firms need financial resources to pursue marketing campaigns or a penetration pricing strategy [30]. |
Brand reputation and credibility | A firm’s reputation and credibility are important as they may affect people’s intention to adopt standards. | |
Learning orientation | Learning orientation entails learning from failures that were made in previous battles and the extent of R&D investments in the technology. | |
Characteristics of the technology | Technological superiority | Technological superiority refers to all technological characteristics allowing the technology to outperform the competing technology [54]. |
Compatibility | A technology that is compatible with other technologies increases the chances that the technology is adopted. For example, this refers to compatibility with an infrastructure that is already present (refuelling stations and vehicles). | |
Complementary goods | A higher availability and variety of complementary products has a positive effect on the installed base of a technology [30]. | |
Strategy | Pricing strategy | Pricing strategy can be used to increase the installed base of a technology. For example, the technology can be priced below cost (penetration pricing) which will increase the installed base. |
Marketing communications | Marketing communications has a positive effect on the installed base. Firms can pursue marketing campaigns and thereby increase expected and perceived installed base. | |
Commitment | When firms are more committed to a technology, this has a positive effect on the chances that this technology achieves success [10]. | |
Other stakeholders | Regulator | The regulator may be very important in standards competition. When it enforces a standard, the standards battle may end prematurely as the enforced standard achieves success. |
Network of stakeholders | Network of stakeholders can be crucial. For example, when the standard is promoted by a diverse network of stakeholders and thus by firms that represent different industries, the standard can make use of the installed base in each of these industries [25]. |
Criteria Experts | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | Avg. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Characteristics of the format supporter | |||||||||||||||||||
Financial strength | 0.015 | 0.053 | 0.318 | 0.017 | 0.180 | 0.037 | 0.084 | 0.075 | 0.029 | 0.145 | 0.011 | 0.009 | 0.058 | 0.029 | 0.236 | 0.006 | 0.112 | 0.142 | 0.087 |
Brand reputation and credibility | 0.006 | 0.177 | 0.101 | 0.110 | 0.057 | 0.161 | 0.419 | 0.043 | 0.177 | 0.262 | 0.060 | 0.059 | 0.320 | 0.192 | 0.025 | 0.036 | 0.011 | 0.052 | 0.126 |
Learning orientation | 0.038 | 0.029 | 0.047 | 0.045 | 0.022 | 0.020 | 0.042 | 0.140 | 0.053 | 0.058 | 0.032 | 0.024 | 0.087 | 0.070 | 0.039 | 0.013 | 0.028 | 0.272 | 0.059 |
ξ* | 0.140 | 0.130 | 0.183 | 0.140 | 0.194 | 0.104 | 0.154 | 0.042 | 0.130 | 0.063 | 0.028 | 0.140 | 0.063 | 0.060 | 0.120 | 0.060 | 0.173 | 0.028 | 0.108 |
Characteristics of the format | |||||||||||||||||||
Technological superiority | 0.178 | 0.252 | 0.162 | 0.091 | 0.133 | 0.433 | 0.023 | 0.300 | 0.052 | 0.073 | 0.151 | 0.017 | 0.114 | 0.091 | 0.293 | 0.277 | 0.141 | 0.093 | 0.160 |
Compatibility | 0.325 | 0.136 | 0.065 | 0.137 | 0.266 | 0.045 | 0.133 | 0.114 | 0.310 | 0.154 | 0.268 | 0.097 | 0.045 | 0.297 | 0.166 | 0.053 | 0.035 | 0.050 | 0.150 |
Complementary goods | 0.042 | 0.078 | 0.032 | 0.030 | 0.067 | 0.058 | 0.050 | 0.052 | 0.103 | 0.032 | 0.047 | 0.055 | 0.013 | 0.160 | 0.051 | 0.145 | 0.013 | 0.029 | 0.059 |
ξ* | 0.058 | 0.042 | 0.125 | 0.176 | 0.000 | 0.058 | 0.089 | 0.089 | 0.000 | 0.031 | 0.075 | 0.075 | 0.123 | 0.042 | 0.075 | 0.028 | 0.173 | 0.042 | 0.072 |
Format support strategy | |||||||||||||||||||
Pricing strategy | 0.122 | 0.030 | 0.043 | 0.330 | 0.034 | 0.047 | 0.035 | 0.071 | 0.022 | 0.021 | 0.167 | 0.042 | 0.017 | 0.052 | 0.011 | 0.077 | 0.450 | 0.043 | 0.090 |
Marketing communications | 0.066 | 0.017 | 0.022 | 0.039 | 0.059 | 0.023 | 0.022 | 0.021 | 0.097 | 0.071 | 0.029 | 0.138 | 0.030 | 0.028 | 0.045 | 0.018 | 0.111 | 0.075 | 0.051 |
Commitment | 0.038 | 0.056 | 0.108 | 0.097 | 0.010 | 0.093 | 0.097 | 0.011 | 0.054 | 0.011 | 0.063 | 0.074 | 0.056 | 0.016 | 0.014 | 0.187 | 0.043 | 0.140 | 0.065 |
ξ* | 0.042 | 0.042 | 0.125 | 0.125 | 0.075 | 0.000 | 0.057 | 0.130 | 0.063 | 0.130 | 0.089 | 0.042 | 0.042 | 0.042 | 0.160 | 0.163 | 0.173 | 0.042 | 0.085 |
Other stakeholders | |||||||||||||||||||
Regulator | 0.056 | 0.057 | 0.021 | 0.083 | 0.057 | 0.028 | 0.016 | 0.129 | 0.083 | 0.138 | 0.017 | 0.162 | 0.032 | 0.007 | 0.100 | 0.157 | 0.050 | 0.069 | 0.070 |
Network of stakeholders | 0.113 | 0.115 | 0.083 | 0.021 | 0.115 | 0.056 | 0.078 | 0.043 | 0.021 | 0.034 | 0.155 | 0.323 | 0.226 | 0.057 | 0.020 | 0.031 | 0.006 | 0.034 | 0.085 |
ξ* | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Factor | BEV | HFCV |
---|---|---|
Financial strength | 0.065 | 0.021 |
Brand reputation and credibility | 0.087 | 0.039 |
Learning orientation | 0.037 | 0.022 |
Technological superiority | 0.093 | 0.066 |
Compatibility | 0.112 | 0.038 |
Complementary goods | 0.041 | 0.017 |
Pricing strategy | 0.067 | 0.023 |
Marketing communications | 0.039 | 0.011 |
Commitment | 0.048 | 0.017 |
Regulator | 0.054 | 0.016 |
Network of stakeholders | 0.065 | 0.020 |
Sum of global weights | 0.709 | 0.291 |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Van de Kaa, G.; Scholten, D.; Rezaei, J.; Milchram, C. The Battle between Battery and Fuel Cell Powered Electric Vehicles: A BWM Approach. Energies 2017, 10, 1707. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10111707
Van de Kaa G, Scholten D, Rezaei J, Milchram C. The Battle between Battery and Fuel Cell Powered Electric Vehicles: A BWM Approach. Energies. 2017; 10(11):1707. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10111707
Chicago/Turabian StyleVan de Kaa, Geerten, Daniel Scholten, Jafar Rezaei, and Christine Milchram. 2017. "The Battle between Battery and Fuel Cell Powered Electric Vehicles: A BWM Approach" Energies 10, no. 11: 1707. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10111707
APA StyleVan de Kaa, G., Scholten, D., Rezaei, J., & Milchram, C. (2017). The Battle between Battery and Fuel Cell Powered Electric Vehicles: A BWM Approach. Energies, 10(11), 1707. https://doi.org/10.3390/en10111707