Current and Future US Light-Duty Vehicle ... - ACS Publications

Subscriber access provided by READING UNIV

Article

Current and Future U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Pathways: Cradle-to-Grave Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Economic Assessment Amgad Elgowainy, Jeongwoo Han, Jacob Ward, Fred Joseck, David Gohlke, Alicia Lindauer, Todd Ramsden, Mary J. Biddy, Mark Alexander, Steven Barnhart, Ian Sutherland, Laura Verduzco, and Timothy J. Wallington Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.7b06006 • Publication Date (Web): 03 Jan 2018 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on January 10, 2018

Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a free service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are accessible to all readers and citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.

Environmental Science & Technology is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.

Page 1 of 21

Environmental Science & Technology

1 2

Current and Future U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Pathways:

3

Cradle-to-Grave Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Economic Assessment

4 5 6 7

Amgad Elgowainy,a* Jeongwoo Han,a Jacob Ward,b Fred Joseck,b David Gohlke,a Alicia Lindauer,b Todd Ramsden,c Mary Biddy,c Mark Alexander,d Steven Barnhart,e Ian Sutherland,f Laura Verduzco,g and Timothy J. Wallingtonh a

Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, IL 60439, USA United States Department of Energy, Washington, DC 20585, USA c National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401, USA d Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA e FCA US LLC, Auburn Hills, MI 48326, USA f General Motors, Pontiac, MI 48340, USA g Chevron Corporation, Richmond, CA 94802, USA h Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI 48121, USA

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

b

17

* Corresponding Author: [email protected]

18

Abstract

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34

This article presents a cradle-to-grave (C2G) assessment of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and costs for current (2015) and future (2025–2030) light-duty vehicles. The analysis addressed both fuel cycle and vehicle manufacturing cycle for the following vehicle types: gasoline and diesel internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs), flex fuel vehicles, compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles, hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs), battery electric vehicles (BEVs), and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs). Gasoline ICEVs using current technology have C2G emissions of ~450 gCO2e/mi (grams of carbon dioxide equivalents per mile), while C2G emissions from HEVs, PHEVs, H2 FCEVs, and BEVs range from 300–350 gCO2e/mi. Future vehicle efficiency gains are expected to reduce emissions to ~350 gCO2/mi for ICEVs and ~250 gCO2e/mi for HEVs, PHEVs, FCEVs and BEVs. Utilizing low-carbon fuel pathways yields GHG reductions more than double those achieved by vehicle efficiency gains alone. Levelized costs of driving (LCDs) are in the range $0.25–$1.00/mi depending on timeframe and vehicle-fuel technology. In all cases, vehicle cost represents the major (60– 90%) contribution to LCDs. Currently, HEV and PHEV petroleum-fueled vehicles provide the most attractive cost in terms of avoided carbon emissions, although they offer lower potential GHG reductions. The ranges of LCD and cost of avoided carbon are narrower for the future technology pathways, reflecting the expected economic competitiveness of these alternative vehicles and fuels.

35 36

ACS Paragon Plus Environment


37

1. Introduction

38

The transportation sector is one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions globally.

39

Light-duty road vehicles are the major contributors to GHG emissions of the U.S. transportation sector.

40

Curbing anthropogenic GHG emissions is among the most important long-term challenges facing

41

society.1 More than190 countries have submitted an “Intended Nationally Determined Contribution” to

42

the United Nations indicating their intention to achieve an economy-wide target of reducing GHG

43

emissions.2 At least 18 U.S. states have also committed to GHG reduction targets.3 Concerted efforts by

44

all players will be needed to meet these ambitious targets. Such efforts will include thorough

45

environmental analysis, coupled with realistic assessments of feasibility, cost, and social impacts.

46

Reducing GHG emissions from the transportation sector is one of the keys to achieving ambitious

47

emissions reduction goals. In the United States, the transportation sector consumed 28 quadrillion British

48

thermal units (Btu) of primary energy resources in 2015 — representing 28% of total national energy

49

consumption; 92% of U.S. transportation energy was supplied by petroleum.4 The transportation sector is

50

now the largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the United States,4 and total GHG emissions from

51

transportation (in carbon-dioxide-equivalents, or CO2e) represent over one-quarter of total emissions

52

nationally.5 Assessing the cost effectiveness of GHG mitigation technologies in the transportation sector

53

is therefore a critical element of a national emissions reduction strategy.

54

GHG emissions are commonly evaluated using life-cycle analysis (LCA), which also forms the basis for

55

this study. Numerous LCA tools have been used to evaluate the GHG emissions associated with various

56

vehicle-fuel technologies, including fossil fuels, biofuels, hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs),

57

hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVS), and battery electric vehicles

58

(BEVs).6–13 Creyts et al. (2007) ranked transportation, building, and electricity generation technologies

59

by amount and cost of GHG emissions reduction in the United States; the Creyts team was the first to

60

publish marginal abatement cost (MAC) charts for a wide range of technologies.14 Sweeney et al. (2008)

61

developed MAC curves for emissions reductions in California to guide the implementation of California’s


Page 2 of 21

Page 3 of 21


62

Assembly Bill 32, which established a comprehensive program of regulatory and market mechanisms to

63

significantly reduce GHG emissions.15 In 2010, Bloomberg New Energy Finance, an energy industry

64

research firm, issued a research note on the carbon markets in North America suggesting that previous

65

estimates of the carbon abatement cost were too optimistic and developed revised MAC curves

66

accounting for new policies and sector-specific discount rates.16 More recently, in 2016, Roland Berger, a

67

global strategy consulting firm headquartered in Munich, conducted a study of possible GHG abatement

68

measures in the road transport sector for decarbonization through 2030 in the European Union (EU).17

69

None of the aforementioned studies conducted a comprehensive cradle-to-grave LCA (including both fuel

70

cycle and vehicle cycle) of the U.S. light-duty vehicles (LDVs) to calculate the GHG emissions and costs

71

of a wide range of vehicle-fuel technologies — highlighting the need for a comprehensive LCA and

72

economic assessment focused on the U.S. transportation sector. To address this research gap, we

73

conducted an independent, comprehensive, cradle-to-grave (C2G) (vehicle and fuel cycle) LCA of energy

74

consumption, GHG emissions, vehicle and fuel costs, carbon abatement costs, and technological readiness

75

for current and future LDV/fuel technology pathways; the data and assumptions in our study were vetted

76

by experts from the U.S. automotive and energy industries.

77

In this paper, we present the C2G assessment of GHG emissions and costs for current (2015) and future

78

(2025–2030) LDVs. The analysis includes gasoline and diesel internal combustion engine vehicles

79

(ICEVs), flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs) fueled by E85 (85% corn ethanol blended with 15% gasoline by

80

volume), compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles, HEVs, FCEVs, BEVs, and PHEVs. To ensure a

81

comprehensive study, we utilized bottom-up vehicle simulation models, LCA models, and techno-

82

economic discounted cash flow models for the C2G analysis. The study resulted in an extensive, self-

83

consistent, and transparent dataset to evaluate the effectiveness of different future LDV options in

84

reducing GHG emissions. While the analysis focused on LDV road transport in the United States, the

85

insights can be applied to other regions.



86

87

2. Methods

88

To facilitate technical discussion of the costs of mitigating GHG emissions generated by LDVs, which are

89

responsible for approximately 60% of transportation-sector GHG emissions in the U.S.,18 our C2G

90

assessment focused on a wide range of current and future vehicle-fuel technologies with potential for

91

future deployment in the United States.19 Our analysis addressed every aspect of the vehicle and fuel life

92

cycles, including manufacturing, end-of-life disposal (recycling and scrappage), and vehicle operation, as

93

well as fuel feedstock production and transportation, fuel production, and fuel distribution. The study

94

focused on fuel pathways deemed capable of scaling to 10% or more of the national LDV fleet by 2025–

95

2030; these pathways were selected on the basis of availability of fuels and technological readiness19 (see

96

also Supporting Information). The study is unique in investigating both the vehicle and fuel cycles of

97

technology pathways presented in Figure 1, using a consistent set of system boundaries and an LCA

98

method, as well as performance and cost data. The resulting comprehensive C2G assessment examines

99

both GHG emissions and costs to determine the relative cost effectiveness of different technology options

100

in mitigating GHG emissions. The analysis is also noteworthy because it involved a research

101

collaboration among stakeholders in government, industry, and national laboratories. The input data and

102

calculations used in the analysis are provided in the Supporting Information.

103


Page 4 of 21

Page 5 of 21


104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113

Figure 1: Scope of C2G assessment, which includes fuel and vehicle life cycles. Inset table: List of fuels, vehicles using these fuels, and sources of fuels examined in this analysis. Abbreviations: CNG – compressed natural gas; LPG – liquefied petroleum gas; ICE – internal combustion engine; HEV – hybrid electric vehicle; PHEV – plug-in hybrid electric vehicle; FCEV – fuel cell electric vehicle; BEV – battery electric vehicle; E10 – 10% corn ethanol blended with 90% petroleum gasoline by volume; HRD – hydroprocessed renewable diesel; FAME – fatty acid methyl ester; GTL FTD – gas-to-liquid FischerTropsch diesel; E85 – 85% corn ethanol blended with 15% gasoline by volume; SMR – steam methane reforming; CCS – carbon capture and storage; PV – photovoltaics; NG ACC – natural gas advanced combined cycle.

114

115

GHG emissions and energy use were calculated using the Greenhouse gas, Regulated Emissions, and

116

Energy use in Transportation (GREET®) model developed at Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne).20

117

Vehicle fuel economies and manufacturing costs were estimated using the Autonomie model,21 also

118

developed at Argonne, by sizing components of the different vehicle architectures to deliver comparable

119

operational performance (e.g., time to accelerate from 0–60 mph, maximum speed), thus eliminating

120

important confounding factors. Autonomie cost results were compared to both real-world vehicle costs

121

and other modeled costs from recent literature, including NRC 2013 22 and 2015 23, NPC 2010 24, and MIT

122

2008 25. Autonomie modeled costs were largely consistent with recent work reported in the literature.



123

Future modeled costs from the comparison studies fell within 30% of the Autonomie results, with the

124

exception of the BEVs, which were modeled at significantly higher cost in NRC 2015 (BEV70) and NPC

125

(BEV210). References to the comparison studies and an overview of comparison results are available in

126

the Supporting Information.

127

The costs to consumers for established fuels were based on the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s

128

(EIA’s) 2015 Annual Energy Outlook,26 while techno-economic analysis models with consistent

129

economic assumptions were used to estimate the costs for hydrogen and advanced bio-derived fuels. The

130

robustness of the cost modeling was tested by examining multiple sensitivities. This study considered

131

different vehicle ownership periods (3, 5, and 15 years), discount rates (3, 5, and 7%), manufacturing

132

volumes (low=10,000–100,000 vehicles/year and high=500,000 vehicles/year), and projected ranges for

133

future oil and other fuel/feedstock prices (details provided in Supporting Information).

134

The fuels or energy carriers in this study included gasoline, ethanol, diesel, CNG, LPG, hydrogen, and

135

electricity. For each of these fuels and their feedstocks, we examined the GHG emissions and costs for a

136

current technology case and possible future technology production pathways. These fuels were used in

137

ICEVs, FFVs fueled by E85, HEVs, hydrogen FCEVs (H2 FCEVs), BEVs with either 90 or 210 miles of

138

range (BEV90 or BEV210), and PHEVs with 10 or 35 miles of all-electric range (PHEV10 or PHEV35).

139

3. Results and Discussion

140

3.1 Vehicle Cycle Emissions

141

Figure 2 presents vehicle life-cycle GHG emissions by vehicle component for the current and future

142

technology cases; additional details are provided in the Supporting Information. Total vehicle-

143

manufacturing life-cycle emissions are between 8–12 tonnes CO2e for current vehicle technologies and 6–

144

9 tonnes CO2e for the future cases. The decrease between the current and future cases mostly reflects the

145

projected reductions in the CO2 burden of average U.S.-generated electricity. The current and future

146

vehicle life-cycle emissions of 7.8 and 6.9 tonnes, respectively, for ICEVs correspond to 44 gCO2e/mi and


Page 6 of 21

Page 7 of 21


147

39 gCO2e/mi when spread over an average 180,000 miles driven during the vehicle’s lifetime27 (see also

148

Supporting Information). BEV210-manufacturing emissions of 9.8 and 7.3 tonnes for the current and

149

future cases correspond to 55 gCO2e/mi and 41 gCO2e/mi. Batteries are assumed to last the life of the

150

vehicle without replacement, and short-range BEVs (e.g., BEV90s) travel approximately 30% fewer miles

151

than conventional vehicles.28 In general, the GHG emissions generated during the vehicle manufacturing

152

cycle are one order of magnitude lower than the fuel cycle GHG emissions of the current gasoline ICEV

153

(~400 gCO2e/mi).

154

The 26% increase in vehicle-manufacturing GHG emissions for the BEV210 versus the gasoline ICEV

155

using the current technology can be compared with increases of 27% reported by Notter et al. (2010),

156

63% by Hawkins et al. (2013), and 39% by Kim and Wallington (2016).29,30,31 Estimates of the emissions

157

burden associated with battery production in the current study, in the Notter et al. (2010) study, and in the

158

Kim and Wallington (2016) study are in good agreement at approximately 2–3 tonnes CO2e, while the

159

Hawkins et al. (2013) estimate is approximately 5 tonnes CO2e.

160

161 162 163

Figure 2: Vehicle life-cycle GHG emissions for current (2015, left panel) and future (2025–2030), right panel) technology pathways.

164



165

3.2 Cradle-to-Grave Emissions

166

Figure 3 shows a selection of the calculated life-cycle GHG emissions from current vehicle-fuel

167

technology pathways and from those deemed scalable in the 2025–2030 timeframe (following an

168

assessment of technological readiness). From a C2G emissions perspective, which includes both fuel and

169

vehicle life cycles, a midsize conventional ICEV today emits approximately 450 gCO2e/mi (black

170

horizontal line in top left of Figure 3) when using E10. Corresponding GHG emissions from diesel ICEVs

171

are approximately 15% lower, while emissions from BEVs operating on the average U.S. grid electricity

172

mix in 2014 and H2 FCEVs fueled by hydrogen derived from natural gas reformation are approximately

173

20–35% lower (horizontal black lines under H2 FCEV, BEV90, and BEV210 at the right of Figure 3). For

174

ICEVs, 9–11% of the total emissions are from the vehicle cycle, for HEVs 13%, and for PHEVs and H2

175

FCEVs 16–21%, while the remainder are generated during the fuel cycle.

176 177 178 179 180 181

Figure 3. Emissions for different vehicle-fuel pathways. The horizontal black lines are emissions from today’s vehicles. Red lines are emissions assuming future vehicle efficiency gains but using current fuels. The vertical arrows show GHG emissions mitigation for vehicle and fuel changes (e.g., the gray arrows represent a conversion from conventional to pyrolysis fuels along with vehicle efficiency gains). Input data and calculations are provided in the Supporting Information.

182


Page 8 of 21

Page 9 of 21


183

Looking to the future, vehicle energy efficiency improvements alone can potentially reduce per-mile C2G

184

GHG emissions by up to 30% per vehicle for most vehicle-fuel pathways (comparing the black with the

185

red horizontal lines in Figure 3). However, there are physical limits to vehicle energy efficiency gains,32

186

and thus a system-level approach requires that advanced low-carbon fuels be used in energy-efficient

187

vehicles to achieve deeper reductions in GHG emissions from the LDV technologies. Assuming large-

188

scale availability, we find that gasoline produced via pyrolysis of forest residue can reduce C2G GHG

189

emissions by nearly 60% relative to E10 gasoline; ethanol produced from fermentation of corn stover can

190

reduce emissions by nearly 50%; and carbon-free renewable electricity sources (such as solar or wind)

191

can reduce GHG emissions by over 80% for BEVs and H2 FCEVs. Therefore, by combining advanced

192

vehicle and fuel technologies, GHG emissions can potentially be reduced by up to 70–90%. However, it

193

should be noted that the total quantities of energy produced through these low-carbon pathways may be

194

limited by their availability, geographical location, infrastructure and/or market constraints, and/or

195

intermittency.

196

3.3 Cradle-to-Grave Costs

197

While Figure 3 shows that advanced vehicle and fuel technologies could clearly lead to deep reductions in

198

GHG emissions compared with a conventional gasoline ICEV, impacts on the upfront vehicle purchase

199

price and the levelized cost of driving (LCD) are decisive factors in the adoption of these vehicles by

200

consumers. Figure 4 shows LCDs for current (2015, dark bars) and future (2025–2030, light bars)

201

vehicle-fuel technologies, assuming high production volumes for all vehicle and fuel production

202

technology pathways. The LCDs, including vehicle purchase and fuel cost, ranged from 24¢ per mile for

203

current conventional gasoline ICEVs to 56¢ per mile for BEV210s, assuming high-volume manufacturing

204

(~500k units/year). Low-volume manufacturing (10k–100k units/year) of components that are not

205

currently mainstream, such as high-capacity battery packs and hydrogen fuel cell stacks, increases the

206

estimated vehicle price by up to 70% (to as high as 93¢ per mile for BEV210s) compared with high-

207

volume production. The data in Figure 4 were computed using a 15-year vehicle lifetime, to determine the



208

LCD to all owners over the vehicle lifetime, and a 5% discount rate. Maintenance, insurance, parking,

209

highway tolls, and other expenses (besides the purchase price of the vehicle and its fuel) were not

210

included in the analysis, because these costs were assumed not to be major differentiators between the

211

different technologies.

212

In 2025–2030, ICEVs using conventional gasoline were determined to be the least expensive vehicle-fuel

213

systems for the end user on a per-mile basis. LCDs ranged from 26¢ per mile for conventional gasoline

214

ICEVs to 38¢ per mile for long-range BEVs using electricity derived from solar energy. The costs of

215

other pathways include 31¢ per mile for corn-stover ethanol ICEVs, 28¢–30¢ per mile for PHEVs and H2

216

FCEVs, and 34¢–38¢ per mile for BEVs. The central estimate of the future technology conventional

217

ICEV is $2,110 more than the central estimate of the current technology version, due to advancement in

218

engine and materials technologies.21

219

3.4 Costs of Avoided GHG Emissions

220

The costs of avoided GHG emissions for alternative vehicle-fuel pathways were calculated from the

221

difference in the per-mile costs (shown in Figure 4) of the conventional gasoline ICEV baseline compared

222

with the alternative technology divided by the difference in the per-mile GHG emissions of the alternative

223

vehicle compared with the gasoline ICEV (shown in Figure 3). Figure 5 shows the results for selected

224

high-volume current (dark bars) and future (light bars) technology pathways. The results for the future

225

technology pathways indicate that the lowest-cost ICEV, PHEV, HEV, H2 FCEV, and BEV pathways

226

have avoided GHG emission costs in the range of $90–$400/tonne CO2e, relative to an ICEV fueled by

227

petroleum gasoline, while current technologies have a GHG emission cost of up to $1,100 for FCEV and

228

BEV90, and $2,600 for BEV210. In a sensitivity analysis with a high oil price and a low discount rate, the

229

cost of GHG mitigation was negative (money was saved while emissions were reduced at the same time)

230

for high-efficiency hybrid vehicles and for PHEVs with a 10- to 35-mile electric range. The success of

231

alternative technologies at scale will depend on several factors, including their cost-effectiveness in a


Page 10 of 21

Page 11 of 21


232

competitive environment. The results in Figure 5 are based on the lowest-cost fuel for each vehicle type;

233

details about these vehicle-fuel pathways, along with other potential and plausible energy-fuel pathways,

234

are provided in the Supporting Information.

235 236 237 238

Figure 4. Levelized cost of driving for current (2015, dark bars) and future (2025–2030, light bars) technology pathways. Low-volume production is represented by black diamonds. CNG and LPG vehicles are evaluated only for the current technology case.

239

The x-axis scale in Figure 5 highlights the costs associated with reducing GHG emissions for future

240

vehicle-fuel pathways compared with the incumbent future gasoline ICEV baseline, although with lager

241

potential for GHG emissions reduction. To place these costs into perspective, a typical gasoline ICEV

242

using current technology emits approximately 80 tonnes of CO2e over its lifetime of approximately

243

180,000 miles on a C2G basis, equivalent to ~450 gCO2e/mi. Emissions reductions from the future

244

vehicle-fuel pathways described above would have a 6–55% premium (total cost of driving over vehicle’s



245

lifetime) compared to the baseline 2025–2030 ICEV using petroleum-based gasoline. As ownership costs

246

(represented here in LCD terms) can be significantly higher for advanced vehicle-fuel technologies, GHG

247

emissions reduction and other benefits of these advanced vehicle-fuel pathways should be examined with

248

consideration to future affordability and the ability of all levels of society to access modes of personal

249

transportation. Estimates of significant LCD increases for advanced vehicle-fuel technologies show the

250

need for additional research and development to reduce costs.

251 252 253 254 255

Figure 5. Cost of avoided GHGs for current (2015, dark bars) and future (2025–2030, light bars) technology pathways compared with a conventional gasoline ICEV (baseline). Lifetime costs for carbon mitigation using current technologies range from $170 to $2,700 per tonne. The lowest-cost future pathways are shown for each vehicle type, and range from $90 to $410 per tonne.

256

257


Page 12 of 21

Page 13 of 21


258

3.5 Uncertainties

259

Calculations of fuel consumption and vehicle costs were performed using the Autonomie automotive

260

control system and simulation tool,21 which provides low, medium, and high (90th, 50th, and 10th

261

percentile probability) estimates for future vehicle technology and cost progress. The results in Figures 4

262

and 5 are based on the medium technology progress case and the average of the low and high cost

263

progress cases (see Supporting Information). The research team investigated sensitivity to future vehicle

264

costs using cost ranges that spanned the low and high estimates. As indicated by the lighter color bars in

265

Figure 4, inclusion of vehicle cost uncertainties does not alter the relative ranking of the technologies, but

266

for the low extremes of the cost ranges, inclusion of these uncertainties would substantially narrow the

267

gap between the technologies. Table 1 lists the uncertainties in vehicle costs and their impacts on LCDs.

268

Note that Table 1 shows the lowest cost advanced fuel pathway for each powertrain, see Supporting

269

Information for costs of other fuels.

270 271

Table 1. Range of future incremental vehicle costs, sensitivities of levelized cost of driving to vehicle costs, and sensitivity of abatement costs to vehicle cost and oil price.

272 273 274

Incremental vehicle Sensitivity of Abatement cost & Abatement cost and Future vehicle cost relative to future LCD ($/mi) to sensitivity to vehicle sensitivity to oil type gasoline ICEV ($) a vehicle cost b cost ($/ton CO2e) price ($/ton CO2e) Gasoline ICEV ±780 ±0.006 240±30 c 240+75-220 Diesel ICEV 2350±1090 ±0.009 255±40 c 255+70-210 HEV 2070±1100 ±0.009 95±35 c 95+65-190 d PHEV10 2660±760 ±0.006 90±25 90+65-185 PHEV35 6390±1480 ±0.012 145±40 d 145+60-165 FCEV 6770±1990 ±0.016 210±65 e 210+65-210 BEV90 3570±2290 ±0.026 290±85 f 290+55-155 f BEV210 19,600±7430 ±0.057 410±185 410+50-150 a: medium value with range spanning high and low values from Autonomie model, relative to medium value for future ICEV; b: sensitivity of LCD to range of vehicle costs; c: pyrolysis liquid fuel; d: pyrolysis liquid fuel, wind electricity; e: SMR with CCS; f: wind electricity, see text and SI for details.

275 276

The results shown in Figure 4 were obtained using future fuel costs from the reference case in the EIA’s

277

2015 Annual Energy Outlook26 with a crude oil cost of $82/barrel corresponding to a fuel cost of



278

$0.071/mi for gasoline ICEVs (shown in the bottom bar in Figure 4). The low- ($57/barrel) and high-oil

279

price ($158/barrel) cases from EIA correspond to fuel costs of $0.055 and $0.117/mi. The high oil price

280

extreme would add $0.046/mi to the LCD for the future conventional gasoline ICEV, and increase it to

281

$0.30/mi, which is higher than the future HEV and PHEV10 pathways and comparable to the lowest cost

282

future PHEV35 and FCEV pathways. It is well established that high oil prices make alternative

283

technologies more attractive.

284

For the high-oil-price case, several of the pathways have negative abatement costs (money saved and

285

emissions reduced). We note that large-scale use of alternative technologies would reduce oil demand,

286

making an assumption of high oil prices questionable. For further discussion of uncertainties, see the

287

Supporting Information.

288

3.6 Cost-effectiveness

289

To assess cost effectiveness, the costs of the technologies in Figure 5 need to be compared with the

290

benefits. The costs in Figure 5 can be compared to the social cost of CO2,33 which has been estimated by

291

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to be $14–$152 per tonne in 2025–2030.34 The costs estimated

292

for avoiding GHG emissions from LDVs shown in Figure 5 are higher than the externalities estimated for

293

the social cost of CO2. Furthermore, while these alternative vehicle-fuel systems provide large GHG

294

emissions reductions, they require further research and development to compete against the conventional

295

systems available in the market today.

296

This contextualization highlights the utility of the cost of avoided emissions as a metric for comparing

297

different technologies. However, using the cost-of-avoided-emissions metric has limitations; the

298

technologies considered in the analysis differ not only in terms of their lifetime GHG emissions but also

299

in other important attributes, such as local air-quality-related emissions, reliance on different energy

300

sources and fuels (e.g., petroleum, natural gas, ethanol, hydrogen, electricity), and functionality (e.g.,

301

more limited range and longer refueling times for BEVs).


Page 14 of 21

Page 15 of 21


302

The current work represents a comprehensive analysis of life-cycle GHG emissions and associated costs.

303

While several well-to-wheel fuel-cycle assessments of the emissions abatement costs associated with

304

LDVs have been published, the results from these previous assessments diverge widely. As an example, a

305

McKinsey report concludes that carbon abatement costs in the U.S. LDV sector are generally negative,35

306

while the report from Roland Berger finds positive abatement costs for LDV technologies in the EU in the

307

range of 100–800 EUR/tonne.17 The figures from Roland Berger are broadly consistent with our results

308

for the United States, although further work is needed to compare and contrast the key assumptions across

309

studies. As mentioned earlier, details regarding input data, assumptions, and calculations for the present

310

work are provided in the Supporting Information.

311

To achieve large-scale GHG emissions reductions in the United States, emissions reductions will be

312

required in all sectors: electric power generation, residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation.

313

The findings presented here highlight the challenges in achieving large GHG emissions reductions from

314

LDVs and can help policymakers develop a more informed approach to addressing GHG emissions

315

reductions.

316

Acknowledgements and Disclaimer

317

The research effort was supported by the Fuel Cell Technologies Office and the Vehicle Technologies

318

Office of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy under

319

Contract Number DE-AC02-06CH11357. The views and opinions of the authors expressed herein do not

320

necessarily state or reflect those of the U.S. Government or any agency thereof. Neither the U.S.

321

Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, expressed or

322

implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of

323

any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe

324

privately owned rights. U.S. DRIVE Cradle-to-Grave Working Group members contributed to this report

325

in a variety of ways, ranging from full-time work in multiple study areas, to research or analysis on a



326

specific topic, to drafting and reviewing proposed materials. Involvement in these activities should not be

327

construed as endorsement or agreement with all of the assumptions, analyses, statements, and findings in

328

the report. Any views and opinions expressed in the report are those of the authors and do not necessarily

329

reflect the views of Argonne National Laboratory, Chevron Corporation, Electric Power Research

330

Institute, Exxon Mobil Corporation, FCA US LLC, Ford Motor Company, General Motors, National

331

Renewable Energy Laboratory, Phillips 66 Company, Shell Oil Products US, or the U.S. Department of

332

Energy. Ford Motor Company (Ford) does not expressly or impliedly warrant, nor assume any

333

responsibility, for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or

334

process disclosed, nor represent that its use would not infringe the rights of third parties. Reference to any

335

commercial product or process does not constitute its endorsement. This article does not provide

336

financial, safety, medical, consumer product, or public policy advice or recommendation. Readers should

337

independently replicate all experiments, calculations, and results. The views and opinions expressed are

338

of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Ford. This disclaimer may not be removed, altered,

339

superseded or modified without prior Ford permission.

340

Supporting Information

341

The supporting information include the following supporting material:

342

- Vehicle scale assumptions by technology

343

- Fuel production pathways considered in the cradle-to-grave analysis

344

- Annual vehicle mileage assumptions

345

- Vehicle fuel economy

346

- Summary of fuel cost inputs

347

- Summary of vehicle costs compared with other studies

348

- The levelized cost of driving calculation formula

349

- Uncertainty analysis


Page 16 of 21

Page 17 of 21


350

References

351 352 353 354

1

IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2013, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324, accessed November 2017; United Nations, undated, Sustainable Development Goals, Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdgs, accessed February 2017.

355 356 357 358

2

Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC), undated, INDCs as Communicated by Parties (submitted to the United Nations), http://www4.unfccc.int/Submissions/INDC/Submission%20Pages/submissions.aspx, accessed October 2017.

359 360 361

3

C2ES: Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, undated, Policy Hub-Climate Solutions-Climate Basics-Our Work-About-Library, https://www.c2es.org/what_is_being_done/targets, accessed October 2017.

362 363

4

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2017, Monthly Energy Review, Total Energy, October 26, http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/, accessed June 2016.

364 365 366 367

5

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2016, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2014, April, https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHG-Inventory-2016-MainText.pdf, 2016.

368 369 370 371 372

6

Cai, H., A.R. Brandt, S. Yeh, J.G. Englander, J. Han, and A. Elgowainy, 2015, “Well-to-Wheels Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Canadian Oil Sands Products: Implications for U.S. Petroleum Fuels,” Environmental Science & Technology, 49(13), 8219–8227, DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.5b01255, http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b01255, accessed November 2017.

373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381

7

Dunn, J.B., S. Mueller, M.Q. Wang, and J. Han, 2012, “Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Enzyme and Yeast Manufacture for Corn and Cellulosic Ethanol Production,” Biotechnology Letters, 34(12), 2259–2263, doi: 10.1007/s10529-012-1057-6, http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10529-012-1057-6, accessed November 2017.

8

Elgowainy, A., J. Han, H. Cai, M. Wang, G.S. Forman, and V.B. DiVita, 2014, “Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Intensity of Petroleum Products at U.S. Refineries,” Environmental Science & Technology, 48(13), 7612–7624, DOI: 10.1021/es5010347, http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es5010347, accessed November 2017.

382 383 384 385 386

9

Elgowainy, A., A. Rousseau, M. Wang, M. Ruth, D. Andress, J. Ward, F. Joseck, T. Nguyen, and S. Das, 2013, “Cost of Ownership and Well-to-Wheels Carbon Emissions/Oil Use of Alternative Fuels and Advanced Light-Duty Vehicle Technologies,” Energy for Sustainable Development, 17(6), 626–641, doi:10.1016/j.esd.2013.09.001, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0973082613000732, accessed November 2017.



387 388 389 390 391 392

10

Goellner, J.F., V. Shah, M.J. Turner, N.J. Kuehn, J. Littlefield, G. Cooney, and J. Marriott, 2013, Analysis of Natural Gas-to Liquid Transportation Fuels via Fischer-Tropsch, DOE/NETL2013/1597, prepared for National Energy Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy by Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc., September 13, http://netl.doe.gov/File%20Library/Research/Energy%20Analysis/Publications/Gas-toLiquids_Report.pdf, accessed November 2017.

393 394 395 396

11

Han, J., A. Elgowainy, J. Dunn, and M.Q. Wang, 2013, “Life Cycle Analysis of Fuel Production from Fast Pyrolysis of Biomass,” Bioresource Technology, Vol. 133, pp. 421–428, doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2013.01.141, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960852413001739, accessed November 2017. 12 Ramsden, T., M. Ruth, V. Diakov, M. Laffen, and T.A. Timbario, 2013, Hydrogen Pathways: Updated Cost, Well-to-Wheels Energy Use, and Emissions for the Current Technology Status of Ten Hydrogen Production, Delivery, and Distribution Scenarios, NREL/TP-6A10-60528, prepared by National Renewable Energy Laboratory and Alliance Technical Services, Inc., March, https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60528.pdf, accessed November 2017.

397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405

13

Wang, M., H. Huo, and S. Arora, 2011, “Methods of Dealing with Co-products of Biofuels in Life-cycle Analysis and Consequent Results within the U.S. Context,” Energy Policy, 39(10), 5726–5736, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421510002156, accessed November 2017.

406 407 408 409 410

14

Creyts, J., A. Derkach, S. Nyquist, K. Ostrowski, and J. Stephenson, 2007, Reducing U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: How Much at What Cost?, McKinsey & Company and The Conference Board, December, U.S. Greenhouse Gas Abatement Mapping Initiative, https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability-and-resource-productivity/ourinsights/reducing-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions, accessed November 2017.

411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418

15

Sweeney, J., J. Weyant, T.T. Chan, R. Chowdhary, K. Gillingham, A. Guy, S. Houde, A. Lambie, R.P. Naga, R. Raybin, A. Sathe, A. Sudarshan, J. Westersund, and A.Y. Zheng, 2008, DRAFT: Analysis of Measures to Meet the Requirements of California’s Assembly Bill 32, Precourt Institute for Energy Efficiency, Stanford University, September 27, http://web.stanford.edu/group/peec/cgibin/docs/policy/research/September%2027%202008%20Discussion%20Draft%20%20Analysis%20of%20Measures%20to%20Meet%20the%20Requirements%20of%20California s%20Assembly%20Bill%2032.pdf, accessed November 2017.

419 420 421

16

Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), 2010, U.S. MAC Curve: A Fresh Look at the Costs of Reducing U.S. Carbon Emissions, January 14, https://about.bnef.com/blog/us-mac-curve-a-freshlook-at-the-costs-of-reducing-us-carbon-emissions/, accessed November 2017.

422 423 424

17

Roland Berger, 2016, Integrated Fuels and Vehicles Roadmap to 2030+, April 27, https://www.rolandberger.com/publications/publication_pdf/roland_berger_integrated_fuels_and _vehicles_roadmap_to_2030_v2_20160428.pdf, Germany, 2016.


Page 18 of 21

Page 19 of 21


425 426 427 428

18

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2016, Fast Facts: U.S. Transportation Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 1990–2014, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-F-16-020, June, https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=P100ONBL.pdf, accessed February 2017.

429 430 431 432 433 434

19

Elgowainy, A., J. Han, J. Ward, F. Joseck, D. Gohlke, A. Lindauer, T. Ramsden, M. Biddy, M. Alexander, A. Barnhart, I. Sutherland, L. Verduzco, and T.J. Wallington, 2016, Cradle-toGrave Lifecycle Analysis of U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle-Fuel Pathways: A Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Economic Assessment of Current (2015) and Future (2025–2030) Technologies, Argonne National Laboratory, June 1, https://greet.es.anl.gov/publication-c2g-2016-report, accessed November 2017.

435 436

20

Argonne National Laboratory, 2016, GREET Model, https://greet.es.anl.gov/index.php, accessed November 2017.

437 438 439 440 441

21

Moawad, A., N. Kim, N. Shidore, and A. Rousseau, 2016, Assessment of Vehicle Sizing, Energy Consumption and Cost Through Large Scale Simulation of Advanced Vehicle Technologies, Argonne National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy, Efficiency & Renewable Energy, http://www.autonomie.net/publications/fuel_economy_report.html, accessed November 2017.

442 443 444

22

National Research Council (NRC), 2013. Transitions to Alternative Vehicles and Fuels. Washington, DC. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18264, accessed November 2017.

445 446 447

23

National Research Council (NRC), 2015. Cost, Effectiveness, and Deployment of Fuel Economy Technologies for Light-Duty Vehicles. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/21744, accessed November 2017.

448 449

24

National Petroleum Council (NPC), 2012. Advancing Technology for America’s Transportation. http://www.npc.org/reports/rby.html, accessed November 2017.

450 451 452 453 454

25

Bandivadekar, A., K. Bodek, L. Cheah, C. Evans, T. Groode, J. Heywood, E. Kasseris, M. Kromer, and M. Weiss (MIT), 2008. On the Road in 2035: Reducing Transportation’s Petroleum Consumption and GHG Emissions. http://web.mit.edu/sloan-autolab/research/beforeh2/otr2035/On%20the%20Road%20in%202035_MIT_July%202008.pdf, accessed November 2017.

455 456 457

26

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2015, Annual Energy Outlook 2015 with Projections to 2040, DOE/EIA-0383(2015), April, http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2015).pdf, accessed November 2017.

458 459 460 461

27

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 2006, Vehicle Survivability and Travel Mileage Schedules, National Center for Statistics and Analysis, U.S. Department of Transportation, Technical Report, DOT HS 809 952, January, https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/809952, accessed November 2017.



462 463 464 465 466

28

Francfort, J., B. Bennett, R. Carlson, T. Garretson, L. Gourley, D. Karner, M. Kirkpatrick, P. McGuire, D. Scoffield, M. Shirk, S. Salisbury, S. Schey, J. Smart, S. White, and J. Wishart, 2015, Plug-in Electric Vehicle and Infrastructure Analysis, Idaho National Laboratory, prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, September, http://avt.inel.gov/summaryreport.shtml, accessed November 2017.

467 468 469

29

Notter, D.A., M. Gauch, R. Widmer, P. Wäger, A. Stamp, R. Zah, and H.-J. Althaus, 2010, “Contribution of Li-ion Batteries to the Environmental Impact of Electric Vehicles,” Environmental Science Technology, 44, 6550–6556.

470 471 472

30

Hawkins, T.R., B. Singh, G. Majeau-Bettez, and A.H. Strømman, 2013, “Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles,” Journal of Industrial Ecology, 17, 53–64.

473 474 475

31

Kim, H.C., T.J. Wallington, R. Arsenault, C. Bae, S. Ahn, and J. Lee, 2016, Cradle-to-gate Emissions from a Commercial Electric Vehicle Li-ion Battery: A Comparative Analysis, Environmental Science Technology, 50, 7715–7722.

476 477 478

32

Gearhart, C., 2016, “Implications of Sustainability for the United States Light-duty Transportation Sector,” MRS Energy and Sustainability Review Journal, 3. https://doi.org/10.1557/mre.2016.8, accessed November 2017.

479 480 481

33

Pizer, W., M. Adler, J. Aldy, D. Anthoff, M. Cropper, K. Gillingham, M. Greenstone, B. Murray, R. Newell, R. Richels, A. Rowell, S. Waldhoff, and J. Wiener, 2014, Using and Improving the Social Cost of Carbon, Science, 346, 1189–1190.

482 483 484

34

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), undated, The Social Cost of Carbon, https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climatechange/social-cost-carbon_.html, accessed February 2017.

485 486 487 488

35

Nauclér, T., and P.-A. Enkvist, 2009, Pathways to a Low-carbon Economy: Version 2 of the Global Greenhouse Gas Abatement Cost Curve, McKinsey Co., https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability-and-resource-productivity/ourinsights/pathways-to-a-low-carbon-economy, accessed November 2017.

489 490


Page 20 of 21

Page 21 of 21


TOC abstract graphic 69x44mm (220 x 220 DPI)


Current and Future US Light-Duty Vehicle ... - ACS Publications

Recommend Documents