Electric vehicles (EVs) are significantly more efficient than internal combustion engine vehicles, meaning that most of the energy that goes into an EV in the form of electricity is converted into motion of the wheels. For example, electric cars convert over 80% of the electric energy from the grid into power at the wheels, while conventional internal combustion engine vehicles only convert about 20% of the energy stored in gasoline into motion.
As a result, increasing transport electrification reduces the energy intensity of GDP, a measure of how much energy is needed to power the economy.
However, the impact of this shift on the overall energy intensity of the economy appears modest in En-ROADS. This is due to several factors: rapid electrification and efficiency improvements already built into the Baseline Scenario; a rebound effect that increases energy demand; the main slider’s focus on road and rail rather than harder-to-electrify air and water transport; and the transport sector’s relatively small share of the global economy.
1. Electrification of transportation is one of the primary factors already decreasing the energy intensity of the global economy in the Baseline Scenario. As the percent of electrified transport increases dramatically between 2025 and 2050, the energy intensity of GDP drops by a significant 30%.
This reduction is partly due to the much higher energy conversion efficiency of electric vehicles. Learn more in this helpful explainer from Yale Climate Connections.
In addition, advancements in technology are also driving improvements in efficiency.
2. Electrifying transport triggers a rebound effect that limits energy efficiency gains. When a user boosts transportation electrification—by increasing subsidies, banning fuel-based vehicles, or expanding charging infrastructure—some of the expected energy efficiency gains are offset by a feedback effect in En-ROADS.
As electric transport becomes cheaper, people tend to use it more, raising overall energy demand. As a result, the energy intensity of GDP does not decline as quickly as one might expect. This dynamic, known as the “Jevons paradox” or rebound effect, helps explain why increasing the “Electric Share of Total Transport” shows only a modest impact on “Energy Intensity of GDP” (see the behavior below).
3. Electrifying airplanes and ships would further reduce the energy intensity of GDP. The main Transport Electrification slider in En-ROADS subsidizes electric road and rail transport and does not address hard(er)-to-electrify air and water transport. However, users can apply a sales ban on fuel-powered air and water transport to encourage electrification in these sectors. This additional action can lead to a greater reduction in energy intensity of GDP compared to the Baseline Scenario (see the behavior below).
4. Because transport accounts for only a small share of global GDP, its electrification has a limited impact on overall energy intensity. Transport makes up only 20% of global GDP. If we were to focus solely on the energy intensity of transport-related GDP, the drop from electrification would appear significantly larger.