Top

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

Published in:

10-04-2017 | ROADWAYS AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Comparative life cycle assessment of sport utility vehicles with different fuel options

Authors: Enes Karaaslan, Yang Zhao, Omer Tatari

Published in: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment | Issue 2/2018

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Purpose

Sport utility vehicles typically have lower fuel economy due to their high curb weights and payload capacities as well as their potential to cause serious environmental impacts. In light of this fact, a life cycle assessment is carried out in this study to assess their cradle-to-grave environmental impacts for life cycle phases ranging from manufacturing to end-of-life recycling.

Methods

A hybrid economic input-output life cycle assessment (EIO-LCA) method is used in this research paper to estimate the environmental impacts (greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption, and water withdrawal) of sport utility vehicles. This life cycle assessment is also supplemented with a sensitivity analysis, using a Monte Carlo simulation to estimate the possible ranges for total mileage of operation and fuel economy, and to account for the sensitivity of the EIO-LCA output.

Results and discussion

The operation phase is the major contributor to the overall life cycle impact of sport utility vehicles in each fuel/power category. Furthermore, among the selected vehicles in this study, the battery electric vehicle has the lowest greenhouse gas emissions (77.2 tonnes) and the lowest energy consumption (1046.8 GJ) even though the environmental impact indicators for the battery manufacturing process are significantly large. The plug-in hybrid vehicle, on the other hand, demonstrates an optimal performance between energy use and water withdrawal (1172.9 GJ of energy consumption and 1370 kgal of water withdrawal). In addition, all of the fuel-powered vehicles demonstrated similar environmental performances in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, which ranged between 100 and 110 tonnes, but the hydrogen fuel cell vehicle had a significantly large water withdrawal (2253.2 kgal).

Conclusions

Since the majority of the overall impact stems from the operation of the vehicle in question, their complete elimination of tailpipe emissions and their high energy efficiency levels make battery electric vehicles a viable green option for sport utility vehicles. However, there are certain uncertainties beyond the scope of this study that can be considered in future studies to improve upon this assessment, including (but not limited to) regional differences in source of electricity generation and socio-economic impacts.

previous article Sensitivity-based research prioritization through stochastic characterization modeling

next article Assessing the social impacts of nano-enabled products through the life cycle: the case of nano-enabled biocidal paint

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Ahluwalia RK, Wang X, Rousseau A, Kumar R (2004) Fuel economy of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. J Power Sources 130:192–201CrossRef

Alirezaei M, Noori M, Tatari O (2016a) Getting to net zero energy building: investigating the role of vehicle to home technology. Energy Build 130:465–476CrossRef

Alirezaei M, Noori M, Tatari O et al (2016b) BIM-based damage estimation of buildings under earthquake loading condition. Procedia Eng 145:1051–1058CrossRef

Barnes G, Langworthy P (2004) Per mile costs of operating automobiles and trucks. Transp Res Rec 1864:71–77CrossRef

Bilec M, Ries R, Matthews HS, Sharrard AL (2006) Example of a hybrid life-cycle assessment of construction processes. J Infrastruct Syst 12:207–215CrossRef

Bradsher K (2004) High and mighty: the dangerous rise of the SUV. Public affairs

California Air Resources Board (2014) Fuel cell electric vehicle deployment and hydrogen fuel station network development. California

Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Institute (2008a) Economic input-output life cycle assessment (EIO-LCA). In: US 1997 Ind. Benchmark Model [Internet]. http://www.eiolca.net. Accessed 20 Jun 2002

Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Institute (2008b) Assumptions, uncertainty, and other considerations with the EIO-LCA method. In: Econ. input-output life cycle assess. http://www.eiolca.net/Method/assumptions-and-uncertainty.html. Accessed 1 Jan 2008

Chang D (2012) Financial viability of electric vehicle charging stations

Daimler AG (2015) Life cycle COMPACT. The new GLE 500 e 4MATIC. Stuttgart, GERMANY

Doubilet P, Begg CB, Weinstein MC et al (2002) Probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulation. A practical approach. Med Decis Mak 22:359–371CrossRef

Duvall M (2002) Comparing the benefits and impacts of hybrid electric vehicle options for compact sedan and sport utility vehicles. Manager 1006892. doi: 1000349

Eaves S, Eaves J (2004) Short communication. A cost comparison of fuel-cell and battery electric vehicles. 130:208–212

Ercan T, Tatari O (2015) A hybrid life cycle assessment of public transportation buses with alternative fuel options. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:1213–1231CrossRef

FCA Group Marketing S.p.A (2016) 2015 Grand Cherokee Highlander

FHWA (2001) Cost of owning and operation automobiles, vans, and light trucks

Hendrickson C, Horvath A, Joshi S, Lave L (1998) Economic input-output models for environmental life-cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 32:184a–191aCrossRef

Hendrickson CT, Lave LB, Matthews HS (2006) Environmental life cycle assessment of goods and services: an input-output approach

International Monetary Fund (2002) Indices of market prices for non-fuel and fuel commodities. Washington, DC

LaGrega MD, Buckingham PL, Evans JC (2010) Hazardous waste management: second edition. Waveland Press

Lewis H, Demmers M (1996) Life cycle assessment and environmental management. Aust J Environ Manag 3:110–123CrossRef

Ma H, Balthasar F, Tait N et al (2012) A new comparison between the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of battery electric vehicles and internal combustion vehicles. Energy Policy 44:160–173CrossRef

Matt Stevens (2015) Real-world fuel consumption report

Matthews HS, Small MJ (2000) Extending the boundaries of life-cycle assessment through environmental economic input-output models. J Ind Ecol 4:7–10CrossRef

McCleese DL, LaPuma PT (2002) Using Monte Carlo simulation in life cycle assessment for electric and internal combustion vehicles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7:230–236CrossRef

Messagie M, Boureima FS, Coosemans T et al (2014) A range-based vehicle life cycle assessment incorporating variability in the environmental assessment of different vehicle technologies and fuels. Energies 7:1467–1482CrossRef

Mitropoulos LK, Prevedouros PD (2011) Sustainability framework for the life cycle assessment of light-duty vehicles. In: ICCTP 2011: towards sustainable transportation systems—proceedings of the 11th international conference of Chinese transportation professionals, pp 4407–4419

Moro A, Helmers E (2017) A new hybrid method for reducing the gap between WTW and LCA in the carbon footprint assessment of electric vehicles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22:4–14CrossRef

Morrow K, Karner D, Francfort J (2008) U.S. Department of Energy vehicle technologies program—advanced vehicle testing activity plug-in hybrid electric vehicle charging infrastructure review novem charging infrastructure review. Power 34. doi: 10.2172/946853

National Research Council (2010) Technologies and approaches to reducing the fuel consumption of medium- and heavy-duty vehicles

National Research Council (2011) Assessment of fuel economy technologies for light-duty vehicles. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

Nordelöf A, Messagie M, Tillman AM et al (2014) Environmental impacts of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and battery electric vehicles—what can we learn from life cycle assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1866–1890CrossRef

Onat NC, Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2015) Conventional, hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicles? State-based comparative carbon and energy footprint analysis in the United States. Appl Energy 150:36–49

Ratner M, Glover C (2014) U. S. Energy: overview and key statistics

Samaras C, Meisterling K (2008) Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from plug-in hybrid vehicles: implications for policy. Environ Sci Technol 42:3170–3176CrossRef

Sawilowsky SS (2003) You think you’ve got trivials? J Mod Appl Stat Methods 2:218–225CrossRef

Smolinka T (2009) Water electrolysis. In: Fuels—hydrogen production. pp 394–413

Tesla Motors (2014) Tesla motors—gigafactory. In: Blog. http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/gigafactory

Toyota Motor Sales (2015) 2015 Land Cruiser

Transportation Research Board, National Research Council (2002) Effectiveness and impact of corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

Transportation Technology R&D Center (2009) DOE transportation technology R&D center, GREET-Greenhouse gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy use in Transportation

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015) Producer price indexes (NAICS basis). Washington, DC

U.S. Energy Information Administration (2016) Monthly energy review

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2016) DRAFT inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas 6 emissions and sinks: 1990–2014. Washington, DC

Wakeley HL (2008) Alternative transportation fuels: infrastructure requirements and environmental impacts for ethanol and hydrogen

Yacobucci BD (2004) Sport utility vehicles, mini-vans, and light trucks: an overview of fuel economy and emissions standards

Title: Comparative life cycle assessment of sport utility vehicles with different fuel options
Authors: Enes Karaaslan
Yang Zhao
Omer Tatari
Publication date: 10-04-2017
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment / Issue 2/2018
Print ISSN: 0948-3349
Electronic ISSN: 1614-7502
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-017-1315-x

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results and discussion

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Other articles of this Issue 2/2018

Assessing the social impacts of nano-enabled products through the life cycle: the case of nano-enabled biocidal paint

Application of life cycle assessment approach to deliver low carbon houses at regional level in Western Australia

Saving energy through multifunctional consumer products: an analysis utilizing current literature and life cycle assessment methodology

Sensitive parameters in local agricultural life cycle assessments: the illustrative case of cereal production in Wallonia, Belgium

Life cycle assessment of spectrally tunable light engines

The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints: assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE)