Regional Emissions Analysis of Light-Duty Battery Electric Vehicles

Burnham, Andrew; Lü, Zifeng; Wang, Michael; Elgowainy, Amgad

doi:10.3390/atmos12111482

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…ICEV SUV vs. BEV SUV) are rare [42,43,50,51]. Only one study includes electric pickup trucks [52] and it has significant modeling differences from our study (supplemental note 1 available online at stacks.iop.org/ERL/17/034031/ mmedia).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The role of pickup truck electrification in the decarbonization of light-duty vehicles

Woody

Vaishnav

Keoleian

et al. 2022

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electrification can reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of light-duty vehicles. Previous studies have focused on comparing battery electric vehicle (BEV) sedans to their conventional internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV) or hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) counterparts. We extend the analysis to different vehicle classes by conducting a cradle-to-grave life cycle GHG assessment of model year 2020 ICEV, HEV, and BEV sedans, sports utility vehicles (SUVs), and pickup trucks in the United States. We show that the proportional emissions benefit of electrification is approximately independent of vehicle class. For sedans, SUVs, and pickup trucks we find HEVs and BEVs have approximately 28% and 64% lower cradle-to-grave life cycle emissions, respectively, than ICEVs in our base case model. This results in a lifetime BEV over ICEV GHG emissions benefit of approximately 45 tonnes CO2e for sedans, 56 tonnes CO2e for SUVs, and 74 tonnes CO2e for pickup trucks. The benefits of electrification remain significant with increased battery size, reduced BEV lifetime, and across a variety of drive cycles and decarbonization scenarios. However, there is substantial variation in emissions based on where and when a vehicle is charged and operated, due to the impact of ambient temperature on fuel economy and the spatiotemporal variability in grid carbon intensity across the United States. Regionally, BEV pickup GHG emissions are 13%–118% of their ICEV counterparts and 14%–134% of their HEV counterparts across U.S. counties. BEVs have lower GHG emissions than HEVs in 95%–96% of counties and lower GHG emissions than ICEVs in 98%–99% of counties. As consumers migrate from ICEVs and HEVs to BEVs, accounting for these spatiotemporal factors and the wide range of available vehicle classes is an important consideration for electric vehicle deployment, operation, policymaking, and planning.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The role of pickup truck electrification in the decarbonization of light-duty vehicles

Woody

Vaishnav

Keoleian

et al. 2022

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For battery-electric locomotives, we consider the GHG emissions associated with the upstream processes of electricity generation and the losses in the transmission and distribution system. For current and projected (Mid-case Standard Scenario) generation mixes, we capture the state-wise variation of electricity generation mixes in gCO 2 /kWh supplied to the charger station based on the results from Burnham et al ( 53 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For battery-electric locomotives, the electric grid has geographically varying costs and emissions, which directly affect the evaluation of battery-electric deployment. State-specific commercial electricity rates from Utility Rate Database ( 57 ) and emissions values from Burnham et al ( 53 ) were used. In addition to electrical costs, the economic evaluation of the battery-electric scenario must consider the levelized capital cost of charging facility deployment.…”

Section: Application Data Sources and Parametersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Rail Decarbonization Alternatives: Framework and Application

Hernandez

Siddique

et al. 2023

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation R

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Northwestern University Freight Rail Infrastructure & Energy Network Decarbonization (NUFRIEND) framework is a comprehensive industry-oriented tool for simulating the deployment of new energy technologies including biofuels, e-fuels, battery-electric, and hydrogen locomotives. By classifying fuel types into two categories based on deployment requirements, the associated optimal charging/fueling facility location and sizing problem are solved with a five-step framework. Life-cycle analysis (LCA) and techno-economic analysis (TEA) are used to estimate carbon reduction, capital investments, cost of carbon reduction, and operational impacts, enabling sensitivity analysis with operational and technological parameters. The framework is illustrated on lower-carbon drop-in fuels as well as battery-electric technology deployments for the US Eastern and Western Class I railroad networks. Drop-in fuel deployments are modeled as admixtures with diesel in existing locomotives, while battery-electric deployments are shown for varying technology penetration levels and locomotive ranges. When mixed in a 50% ratio with diesel, results show biodiesel’s capacity to reduce emissions at 36% with a cost of $ 0.13 per kilogram of CO2 reduced, while e-fuels offer a potential reduction of 50% of emissions at a cost of $ 0.22 per kilogram of CO2 reduced. Battery-electric results for 50% deployment over all ton-miles highlight the value of future innovations in battery energy densities as scenarios assuming 800-mi range locomotives show an estimated emissions reduction of 46% with a cost of $ 0.06 per kilogram of CO2 reduced, compared with 16% emissions reduction at a cost of $ 0.11 per kilogram of CO2 reduced for 400-mi range locomotives. The NUFRIEND framework provides a systematic method for comparing different alternative energy technologies and identifying potential challenges and benefits in their future deployments.

show abstract

“…While more significant for BEVs, both high and low temperatures will reduce the fuel economy of vehicles of all powertrains (Wu et al, 2019). This temperature dependency has become common in comparative life cycle assessments between vehicles (Archsmith et al, 2015;Burnham et al, 2021b;Gan et al, 2021;Miller et al, 2020;Needell et al, 2016;Woody et al, 2022aWoody et al, , 2022bWu et al, 2019;Yang et al, 2021Yang et al, , 2018Yuksel & Michalek, 2015;Yuksel et al, 2016), but has yet to be included in any TCO studies. Notably, Hao et al (2020) and Scorrano et al (2020) include some temperature effects, though only for BEVs.…”

Section: Location Dependencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Electric and gasoline vehicle total cost of ownership across US cities

Woody,

Adderly,

Bohra

et al. 2024

J of Industrial Ecology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vehicle electrification can significantly decarbonize the transportation sector. Widespread adoption of electric vehicles (EVs) depends on their cost relative to conventional alternatives. Here we compare the total cost of ownership (TCO) of gasoline, hybrid, and electric vehicles. First, we review previous TCO studies, showing that the components (e.g., purchase price, financing, taxes, fees, insurance, refueling, maintenance, repair, and home charging equipment for EVs), parameters (e.g., vehicle miles traveled, discount rate, and lifetime), and methods differ greatly. Then, we develop a comprehensive TCO model comparing across five vehicle classes, three powertrains, and three EV ranges. Using 14 cities in the United States and multiple charging scenarios, we investigate TCO variability based on location and use pattern. We include adjustments for local gasoline prices, electricity rate plans, home charging access, and the impact of local temperatures and drive cycles on fuel economy, among other factors. We show that for a 300‐mile range midsize electric SUV, TCO varies by $52,000, or nearly 40%, across locations. Home charging access reduces the lifetime cost by approximately $10,000 on average, and up to $26,000. EVs are more competitive in cities with high gasoline prices, low electricity prices, moderate climates, and direct purchase incentives, and for users with home charging access, time‐of‐use electricity pricing, and high annual mileage. In general, we find that small and low‐range EVs are less expensive than gasoline vehicles. Larger, long‐range EVs are currently more expensive than their gasoline counterparts. And midsize EVs can reach cost parity in some cities if incentives are applied.

show abstract

Regional Emissions Analysis of Light-Duty Battery Electric Vehicles

Cited by 15 publications

References 23 publications

The role of pickup truck electrification in the decarbonization of light-duty vehicles

The role of pickup truck electrification in the decarbonization of light-duty vehicles

Evaluation of Rail Decarbonization Alternatives: Framework and Application

Electric and gasoline vehicle total cost of ownership across US cities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About