nach oben

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

Erschienen in:

01.06.2015 | MODERN INDIVIDUAL MOBILITY

Stochastic comparative assessment of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from conventional and electric vehicles

verfasst von: Arash Noshadravan, Lynette Cheah, Richard Roth, Fausto Freire, Luis Dias, Jeremy Gregory

Erschienen in: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment | Ausgabe 6/2015

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Purpose

Electric vehicles (EVs) are promoted due to their potential for reducing fuel consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. A comparative life-cycle assessment (LCA) between different technologies should account for variation in the scenarios under which vehicles are operated in order to facilitate decision-making regarding the adoption and promotion of EVs. In this study, we compare life-cycle GHG emissions, in terms of CO₂eq, of EVs and conventional internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEV) over a wide range of use-phase scenarios in the USA, aiming to identify the vehicles with lower GHG emissions and the key uncertainties regarding this impact.

Methods

An LCA model is used to propagate the uncertainty in the use phase into the greenhouse gas emissions of different powertrains available today for compact and midsize vehicles in the US market. Monte Carlo simulation is used to explore the parameter space and gather statistics about GHG emissions of those powertrains. Spearman’s partial rank correlation coefficient is used to assess the level of contribution of each input parameter to the variance of GHG intensity.

Results and discussion

Within the scenario space under study, battery electric vehicles are more likely to have the lowest GHG emissions when compared with other powertrains. The main drivers of variation in the GHG impact are driver aggressiveness (for all vehicles), charging location (for EVs), and fuel economy (for ICEVs).

Conclusions

The probabilistic approach developed and applied in this study enables an understanding of the overall variation in GHG footprint for different technologies currently available in the US market and can be used for a comparative assessment. Results identify the main drivers of variation and shed light on scenarios under which the adoption of current EVs can be environmentally beneficial from a GHG emissions standpoint.

Vorheriger Artikel Prioritization of bioethanol production pathways in China based on life cycle sustainability assessment and multicriteria decision-making

Nächster Artikel Analysis of water use impact assessment methods (part B): applicability for water footprinting and decision making with a laundry case study

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

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!

Jetzt informieren

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!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Anair D, Mahmassani A (2012) State of charge: electric vehicles’ global warming emissions and fuel-cost savings across the United States. UCS Publications, Cambridge, MA

Bandivadekar A (2008) Evaluating the impact of advanced vehicle and fuel technologies in US light-duty vehicle fleet. Ph.D. thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Bandivadekar A, Bodek K, Cheah L, Evans C, Groode T, Heywood J, Kasseris E, Kromer M, Weiss M (2008) On the road in 2035: reducing transportation’s petroleum consumption and GHG emissions. MIT report # LFEE 2008-05 RP, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, MA, USA

Baptista P, Silva C, Farias T, Gonçalves G (2009) Full life cycle analysis of market penetration of electricity based vehicles. World Electr Veh J 3:1–6

Burnham A, Wang M, Wu Y (2006) Development and applications of GREET 2.7—the transportation vehicle-cycle model. Tech. Rep., ANL/ESD/06–5, Argonne National Lab., IL, USA

Carlson R, Lohse-Busch H, Duoba M, Shidore N (2009) Drive cycle fuel consumption variability of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle due to aggressive driving. SAE Technical Paper 2009-01-1335

Cheah L (2013) Use phase parameter variation and uncertainty in LCA: automobile case study. In: Nee AYC et al. (eds) Re-engineering manufacturing for sustainability. Springer, Singapore, pp 553–557

Doucette R, McCulloch M (2011) Modeling the CO₂ emissions from battery electric vehicles given the power generation mixes of different countries. Energ Policy 39(2):803–811CrossRef

Duoba M, Lohse-Busch H, Bohn T (2005) Investigating vehicle fuel economy robustness of conventional and hybrid electric vehicles. In: Proceedings of the 21st Worldwide Battery, Hybrid and Fuel-Cell Electric Vehiche Symposium and Exposition (EVS-21)

Earleywine M, Gonder J, Markel T, Thornton M (2010) Simulated fuel economy and performance of advanced hybrid electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles using in-use travel profiles. In: Vehicle Power and Propulsion Conference (VPPC), 2010 IEEE, IEEE, pp 1–6

Elgowainy A, Han J, Poch L, Wang M, Vyas A, Mahalik M, Rousseau A (2010) Well-to-wheels analysis of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Tech. Rep., ANL/ESD/09–2, Argonne National Lab., IL, USA

EPA (2012) Emissions and Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID2012), Tech. Rep., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/egrid/index.htm. Accessed 12 Dec 2013

EPA (2014) EPA fuel economy data file. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/epadata/14data.zip. Accessed 21 Feb 2014

Freire F, Marques P (2012) Electric vehicles in Portugal: an integrated energy, greenhouse gas and cost life-cycle analysis. In: Sustainable Systems and Technology (ISSST), 2012 I.E. International Symposium on, IEEE, pp 1–6

Hamby D (1994) A review of techniques for parameter sensitivity analysis of environmental models. Environ Monit Assess 32(2):135–154CrossRef

Hawkins T, Gausen O, Strømman A (2012) Environmental impacts of hybrid and electric vehicles—a review. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17:1–18CrossRef

Hawkins T, Singh B, Majeau-Bettez G, Strømman A (2013) Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles. J Ind Ecol 17(1):53–64CrossRef

Hu P, Reuscher T (2004) Summary of travel trends: 2001 national household travel survey (NHTS), Tech. Rep

Huijbregts MA, Gilijamse W, Ragas AM, Reijnders L (2003) Evaluating uncertainty in environmental life-cycle assessment. A case study comparing two insulation options for a Dutch one-family dwelling. Environ Sci Technol 37(11):2600–2608CrossRef

JD Power (2010) Drive Green 2020: more hope than reality. JD Power and Associates, Tech. Rep., McGraw-Hill, New York, USA

Kocoloski M, Mullins KA, Venkatesh A, Griffin WM (2013) Addressing uncertainty in life-cycle carbon intensity in a national low-carbon fuel standard. Energy Policy 56, May 2013, pp 41–50

Lave L, Hendrickson C, McMichael F (1995) Environmental implications of electric cars. Science 268(5213):993–995CrossRef

LeBlanc D, Sivak M, Bogard S (2010) Using naturalistic driving data to assess variations in fuel efficiency among individual drivers. Tech. Rep., Report UMTRI-2010-34, The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute

Ma H, Balthasar F, Tait N, Riera-Palou X, Harrison A (2012) A new comparison between the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of battery electric vehicles and internal combustion vehicles. Energ Policy 44(1):160–173CrossRef

Mock P, German J, Bandivadekar A, Riemersma I (2012) Discrepancies between type-approval and “real-world” fuel consumption and CO₂ values: assessment for 2001–2011 European passenger cars. International Council for Clean Transportation, Working paper 2012–2

Nansai K, Tohno S, Kono M, Kasahara M (2002) Effects of electric vehicles (EV) on environmental loads with consideration of regional differences of electric power generation and charging characteristic of EV users in Japan. Appl Energy 71(2):111–125CrossRef

Raykin L, Roorda M, MacLean H (2012) Impacts of driving patterns on tank-to-wheel energy use of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 17(3):243–250CrossRef

Samaras C, Meisterling K (2008) Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from plug-in hybrid vehicles: implications for policy. Environ Sci Technol 42(9):3170–3176CrossRef

Santos A, McGuckin N, Nakamoto H, Gray D, Liss S (2011) Summary of travel trends: 2009 National Household Travel Survey. Tech. Rep., US Department of Transportation

Schrank D, Lomax T, Eisele B TTI’s (2011) 2011 urban mobility report-powered by INRIX Traffic Data, Texas Transportation Institute, The Texas A&M University System, College Station, TX, USA

Silva C, Ross M, Farias T (2009) Evaluation of energy consumption, emissions and cost of plug-in hybrid vehicles. Energ Convers Manage 50(7):1635–1643CrossRef

Singh M (1998) Total energy cycle assessment of electric and conventional vehicles: an energy and environmental analysis. Tech. Rep., ANL/ES/RP–96387-Vol.3, Argonne National Lab., IL, USA

Sullivan J, Williams R, Yester S, Cobas-Flores E, Chubbs S, Hentges S, Pomper S (1998) S. of automotive engineers, life cycle inventory of a generic U.S. family sedan: overview of results. USCAR AMP Project, SAE technical paper series, Society of Automotive Engineers

Wang M, Plotkin S, Santini D, He J, Gaines L, Patterson P (1997) Total energy-cycle energy and emissions impacts of hybrid electric vehicles. Tech. Rep., ANL/ES/CP–94277, Argonne National Lab., IL, USA

Titel: Stochastic comparative assessment of life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from conventional and electric vehicles
verfasst von: Arash Noshadravan
Lynette Cheah
Richard Roth
Fausto Freire
Luis Dias
Jeremy Gregory
Publikationsdatum: 01.06.2015
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment / Ausgabe 6/2015
Print ISSN: 0948-3349
Elektronische ISSN: 1614-7502
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0866-y

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results and discussion

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2015

Life-cycle assessment framework for adaptation planning to climate change: linking regional climate impact with product design

The Glasgow consensus on the delineation between pesticide emission inventory and impact assessment for LCA

Construction cost of plant compounds provides a physical relationship for co-product allocation in life cycle assessment

NativeLCA - a systematic approach for the selection of environmental datasets as generic data: application to construction products in a national context

Indian Conference on Life Cycle Management (ILCM) 2015

Evaluation of life cycle inventory at macro level: a case study of mechanical coke production in China