Hybrids are an effective transitional technology for limiting US passenger fleet carbon emissions

Steffen E. Eikenberry; Steffen E. Eikenberry

doi:10.3934/environsci.2020007

AIMS Environmental Science

2020, Volume 7, Issue 2: 117-139. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2020007

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

Hybrids are an effective transitional technology for limiting US passenger fleet carbon emissions

Steffen E. Eikenberry ^,

School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA

Received: 04 November 2019 Accepted: 16 January 2020 Published: 09 March 2020

Human economic activity must be decarbonized within several decades to avoid dangerous levels of global warming, with the US passenger fleet a major source of CO₂. Decarbonization likely requires an ultimate shift to completely electrified transportation, but given the current reliance of electricity generation on fossil fuels, the optimal deployment schedule of low-carbon vehicles is not known. A simple model is developed for the turnover of the vehicle fleet from the current conventional to an all battery-electric vehicle fleet, including the lifecycle emissions for vehicle production, fuel, and electricity generation. Hybrid-electric vehicles are included as a transitional technology. This model represents the US fleet and both the present and future electrical grid at the county scale, and a range of imposed vehicle market share transition scenarios are considered. To limit cumulative vehicle emissions over the 2017 to 2070 interval, an early, rapid adoption of low-carbon vehicles, either as hybrid or pure electric vehicles, must take place, with an ultimate transition to the battery-electric technology. However, hybrids are found to be an effective transitional technology, and even preferable over the short-term in many areas. Furthermore, some degree of behavioral change, in the form of reduced vehicle miles, must accompany this transition to fully meet climate targets.
- hybrid,
- electric vehicle,
- transition,
- global warming,
- lifecycle analysis
Citation: Steffen E. Eikenberry. Hybrids are an effective transitional technology for limiting US passenger fleet carbon emissions[J]. AIMS Environmental Science, 2020, 7(2): 117-139. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2020007

Related Papers:

Abstract

Human economic activity must be decarbonized within several decades to avoid dangerous levels of global warming, with the US passenger fleet a major source of CO₂. Decarbonization likely requires an ultimate shift to completely electrified transportation, but given the current reliance of electricity generation on fossil fuels, the optimal deployment schedule of low-carbon vehicles is not known. A simple model is developed for the turnover of the vehicle fleet from the current conventional to an all battery-electric vehicle fleet, including the lifecycle emissions for vehicle production, fuel, and electricity generation. Hybrid-electric vehicles are included as a transitional technology. This model represents the US fleet and both the present and future electrical grid at the county scale, and a range of imposed vehicle market share transition scenarios are considered. To limit cumulative vehicle emissions over the 2017 to 2070 interval, an early, rapid adoption of low-carbon vehicles, either as hybrid or pure electric vehicles, must take place, with an ultimate transition to the battery-electric technology. However, hybrids are found to be an effective transitional technology, and even preferable over the short-term in many areas. Furthermore, some degree of behavioral change, in the form of reduced vehicle miles, must accompany this transition to fully meet climate targets.

References

[1]	Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National Transportation Statistics. Available from: www.bts.gov/topics/national-transportation-statistics.
[2]	Rogelj JD, Shindell K, Jiang S, et al. (2018) Mitigation Pathways Compatible with 1.5 ℃ in the Context of Sustainable Development. In: Global Warming of 1.5 ℃. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5 ℃ above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pörtner HO, et al. (eds.)]. In Press.
[3]	US Environmental Protection Agency, The 2018 EPA Automotive Trends Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology since 1975. EPA-420-R-19-002, Available from: nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100W5C2.PDF?Dockey=P100W5C2.PDF.
[4]	Yuksel T, Tamayao MAM, Hendrickson C, et al. (2016) Effect of regional grid mix, driving patterns and climate on the comparative carbon footprint of gasoline and plug-in electric vehicles in the United States. Environ Res Lett 11:044007. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/044007
[5]	Jones CM, Kammen DM (2011) Quantifying carbon footprint reduction opportunities for US households and communities. Environ Sci Technol 45: 4088-4095. doi: 10.1021/es102221h
[6]	Ivanova D, Stadler K, Steen-Olsen K, et al. (2016) Environmental impact assessment of household consumption. J Ind Ecol 20: 526-536. doi: 10.1111/jiec.12371
[7]	Wiedenhofer D, Smetschka B, Akenji L, et al. (2018) Household time use, carbon footprints, and urban form: a review of the potential contributions of everyday living to the 1.5 C climate target. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 30: 7-17. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2018.02.007
[8]	Dietz T, Gardner GT, Gilligan J, et al. (2009). Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. PNAS 106: 18452-18456. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0908738106
[9]	Jansen KH, Brown TM, Samuelsen GS (2010) Emissions impacts of plug-in hybrid electric vehicle deployment on the US western grid. J Power Sources 195: 5409-5416. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.03.013
[10]	Zivin JSG, Kotchen MJ, Mansur ET (2014) Spatial and temporal heterogeneity of marginal emissions: Implications for electric cars and other electricity-shifting policies. J Econ Behav Organ 107: 248-268. doi: 10.1016/j.jebo.2014.03.010
[11]	Tamayao MAM, Michalek JJ, Hendrickson C, et al. (2015) Regional variability and uncertainty of electric vehicle life cycle CO₂ emissions across the United States. ‎Environ Sci Technol 49: 8844-8855.
[12]	Axsen J, Kurani KS, McCarthy R, et al. (2011) Plug-in hybrid vehicle GHG impacts in California: Integrating consumer-informed recharge profiles with an electricity-dispatch model. Energy Policy 39: 1617-1629. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2010.12.038
[13]	Yuksel T, Michalek JJ (2015) Effects of regional temperature on electric vehicle efficiency, range, and emissions in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 49: 3974-3980. doi: 10.1021/es505621s
[14]	Miotti M, Supran GJ, Kim EJ, et al. (2016) Personal vehicles evaluated against climate change mitigation targets. Environ Sci Technol 50: 10795-10804. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b00177
[15]	Yang F, Xie Y, Deng Y, et, al. (2018) Considering Battery Degradation in Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emission Analysis of Electric Vehicles. Procedia CIRP 69, 505-510.
[16]	Ellingsen LAW, Singh B, Strømman AH (2016) The size and range effect: lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of electric vehicles. Environ Res Lett 11: 054010. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/054010
[17]	Manjunath A, Gross G (2017) Towards a meaningful metric for the quantification of GHG emissions of electric vehicles (EVs). Energy Policy 102: 423-429. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2016.12.003
[18]	Bicer Y, Dincer I (2017) Comparative life cycle assessment of hydrogen, methanol and electric vehicles from well to wheel. ‎Int J Hydrog Energy 42: 3767-3777.
[19]	Peng T, Ou X, Yan X (2018) Development and application of an electric vehicles life-cycle energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions analysis model. Chem Eng Res Des 131: 699-708. doi: 10.1016/j.cherd.2017.12.018
[20]	Küng L, Bütler T, Georges G, et al. (2018) Decarbonizing passenger cars using different powertrain technologies: Optimal fleet composition under evolving electricity supply. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 95: 785-801. doi: 10.1016/j.trc.2018.09.003
[21]	Wu Z, Wang M, Zheng J, et al. (2018) Life cycle greenhouse gas emission reduction potential of battery electric vehicle. J Clean Prod 190: 462-470. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.036
[22]	Kamiya G, Axsen J, Crawford C (2019) Modeling the GHG emissions intensity of plug- in electric vehicles using short-term and long-term perspectives. Transp Res D 69: 209-223. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2019.01.027
[23]	Onat NC, Noori M, Kucukvar M, et al. (2017) Exploring the suitability of electric vehicles in the United States. Energy 121: 631-642. doi: 10.1016/j.energy.2017.01.035
[24]	US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 2017 National Household Travel Survey. Available from: nhts.ornl.gov/.
[25]	US Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2019 with projections to 2050. January 24, 2019. Available from: www.eia.gov/aeo/.
[26]	US Census Bureau, County Population Totals and Components of Change: 2010-2018. Available from: www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-counties-total.html.
[27]	IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker TF, Qin D. Plattner GK, et al. (eds.)]. NY, USA, Cambridge University Press, 1535.
[28]	Argonne National Laboratory, GREET 1 Model. Available from: greet.es.anl.gov/.
[29]	Venkatesh A, Jaramillo P, Griffin WM, et al. (2012) Uncertainty in life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from United States coal. Energy Fuels 26: 4917-4923. doi: 10.1021/ef300693x
[30]	Howarth RW, Santoro R, Ingraffea A (2011) Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations. Clim Change 106: 679-690. doi: 10.1007/s10584-011-0061-5
[31]	Alvarez RA, Pacala SW, Winebrake JJ, et al. (2012) Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure. PNAS 109: 6435-6440. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1202407109
[32]	Alvarez RA, Zavala-Araiza D, Lyon DR, et al. (2018) Assessment of methane emissions from the US oil and gas supply chain. Science 361: 186-188.
[33]	Caulton DR, Shepson PB, Santoro RL, et al. (2014) Toward a better understanding and quantification of methane emissions from shale gas development. PNAS 111: 6237-6242. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1316546111
[34]	Schneising O, Burrows JP, Dickerson RR, et al. (2014) Remote sensing of fugitive methane emissions from oil and gas production in North American tight geologic formations. Earths Future 2: 548-558. doi: 10.1002/2014EF000265
[35]	Miller SM, Wofsy SC, Michalak AM, et al. (2013) Anthropogenic emissions of methane in the United States. PNAS 110: 20018-20022. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1314392110
[36]	Brandt AR, Heath GA, Kort EA, et al. (2014) Methane leaks from North American natural gas systems. Science 343: 733-735. doi: 10.1126/science.1247045
[37]	Norgate T, Haque N, Koltun P (2014) The impact of uranium ore grade on the greenhouse gas footprint of nuclear power. J Clean Prod 84: 360-367. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.034
[38]	Warner ES, Heath GA (2012) Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear electricity generation. J Ind Ecol 16: S73-S92. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00472.x
[39]	Lenzen, M (2008) Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy: A review. Energy Convers Manag 49: 2178-2199. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2008.01.033
[40]	Sovacool BK (2008) Valuing the greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power: A critical survey. Energy Policy 36: 2950-2963. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2008.04.017
[41]	Beerten J, Laes E, Meskens G, et al. (2009) Greenhouse gas emissions in the nuclear life cycle: A balanced appraisal. Energy Policy 37: 5056-5068. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2009.06.073
[42]	Kadiyala A, Kommalapati R, Huque Z (2016) Quantification of the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from nuclear power generation systems. Energies 9: 863. doi: 10.3390/en9110863
[43]	Song C, Gardner KH, Klein SJ, et al. (2018) Cradle-to-grave greenhouse gas emissions from dams in the United States of America. Renew Sust Energ Rev 90: 945-956. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.014
[44]	Hertwich EG (2013) Addressing biogenic greenhouse gas emissions from hydropower in LCA. Environ Sci Technol 47: 9604-9611. doi: 10.1021/es401820p
[45]	Teodoru CR, Bastien J, Bonneville MC, et al. (2012) The net carbon footprint of a newly created boreal hydroelectric reservoir. Global Biogeochem Cy 26: GB2016.
[46]	Pacca S (2007) Impacts from decommissioning of hydroelectric dams: a life cycle perspective. Clim Change 84: 281-294. doi: 10.1007/s10584-007-9261-4
[47]	Dolan SL, Heath GA (2012) Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of utility-scale wind power. J Ind Ecol 16: S136-S154. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00464.x
[48]	Arvesen A, Hertwich EG (2012) Assessing the life cycle environmental impacts of wind power: A review of present knowledge and research needs. Renew Sust Energ Rev 16: 5994-6006. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2012.06.023
[49]	Nugent D, Sovacool BK (2014) Assessing the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from solar PV and wind energy: a critical meta-survey. Energy Policy 65: 229-244. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2013.10.048
[50]	Sullivan JL, Clark C, Han J, et al. (2013) Cumulative energy, emissions, and water consumption for geothermal electric power production. J Renew Sustain Energy 5: 023127. doi: 10.1063/1.4798315
[51]	Bayer P, Rybach L, Blum P, et al. (2013) Review on life cycle environmental effects of geothermal power generation. Renew Sust Energ Rev 26: 446-463. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2013.05.039
[52]	Fthenakis VM, Kim HC (2011) Photovoltaics: Life-cycle analyses. Solar Energy 85: 1609-1628. doi: 10.1016/j.solener.2009.10.002
[53]	Wong JH, Royapoor M, Chan CW (2016) Review of life cycle analyses and embodied energy requirements of single-crystalline and multi-crystalline silicon photovoltaic systems. Renew Sust Energ Rev 58: 608-618. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.241
[54]	Fthenakis V, Raugei M (2017) Environmental life-cycle assessment of photovoltaic systems. In The Performance of Photovoltaic (PV) Systems (209-232). Woodhead Publishing.
[55]	Milousi M, Souliotis M, Arampatzis G, et al. (2019) Evaluating the Environmental Performance of Solar Energy Systems Through a Combined Life Cycle Assessment and Cost Analysis. Sustainability 11: 2539. doi: 10.3390/su11092539
[56]	Djomo SN, Kasmioui OE, Ceulemans R (2011) Energy and greenhouse gas balance of bioenergy production from poplar and willow: a review. GCB Bioenergy 3: 181-197. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01073.x
[57]	Kadiyala A, Kommalapati R, Huque Z (2016) Evaluation of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions from different biomass feedstock electricity generation systems. Sustainability 8: 1181. doi: 10.3390/su8111181
[58]	Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319: 1235-1238. doi: 10.1126/science.1152747
[59]	Repo A, Tuovinen JP, Liski J (2015) Can we produce carbon and climate neutral forest bioenergy?. GCB Bioenergy 7: 253-262. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12134
[60]	Holtsmark B (2015) Quantifying the global warming potential of CO₂ emissions from wood fuels. GCB Bioenergy 7: 195-206. doi: 10.1111/gcbb.12110
[61]	Hudiburg TW, Law BE, Wirth C, et al. (2011) Regional carbon dioxide implications of forest bioenergy production. Nat Clim Change 1: 419-423. doi: 10.1038/nclimate1264
[62]	Hudiburg TW, Luyssaert S, Thornton PE, et al. (2013) Interactive effects of envi- ronmental change and management strategies on regional forest carbon emissions. Environ Sci Technol 47: 13132-13140. doi: 10.1021/es402903u
[63]	Schulze ED, Körner C, Law BE, et al. (2012) Large-scale bioenergy from additional harvest of forest biomass is neither sustainable nor greenhouse gas neutral. GCB Bioenergy 4: 611-616. doi: 10.1111/j.1757-1707.2012.01169.x
[64]	Cherubini F, Huijbregts M, Kindermann G, et al. (2016) Global spatially explicit CO₂ emission metrics for forest bioenergy. Sci Rep 6: 20186. doi: 10.1038/srep20186
[65]	Booth MS (2018) Not carbon neutral: Assessing the net emissions impact of residues burned for bioenergy. Environ Res Lett 13: 035001. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/aaac88
[66]	US Environmental Protection Agency. Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID). Available from: www.epa.gov/energy/emissions-generation-resource-integrated-database-.
[67]	Casals LC, Martinez-Laserna E, García BA, et al. (2016) Sustainability analysis of the electric vehicle use in Europe for CO₂ emissions reduction. J Clean Prod 127: 425-437. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.03.120
[68]	Van Vliet O, Brouwer AS, Kuramochi T, et al. (2011) Energy use, cost and CO₂ emissions of electric cars. J Power Source 196: 2298-2310. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.09.119
[69]	US Environmental Protection Agency. Air Markets Program Data. Website ampd.epa.gov/ampd/
[70]	Siler-Evans K, Azevedo IL, Morgan MG (2012) Marginal emissions factors for the US electricity system. Environ Sci Technol 46: 4742-4748. doi: 10.1021/es300145v
[71]	Argonne National Laboratory, GREET 2 Model. Available from: greet.es.anl.gov/
[72]	Ellingsen LAW, Majeau-Bettez G, Singh B, et al. (2014) Life cycle assessment of a lithium-ion battery vehicle pack. J Ind Ecol 18: 113-124. doi: 10.1111/jiec.12072
[73]	Kim HC, Wallington TJ, Arsenault R, et al. (2016) Cradle-to-Gate Emissions from a Commercial Electric Vehicle Li-Ion Battery: A Comparative Analysis. Environ Sci Technol 50: 7715-7722. doi: 10.1021/acs.est.6b00830
[74]	Peters JF, Baumann M, Zimmermann B, et al (2017) The environmental impact of Li-Ion batteries and the role of key parameters-A review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 67: 491-506. doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.039
[75]	Ellingsen LAW, Hung CR, Strømman AH (2017) Identifying key assumptions and differences in life cycle assessment studies of lithium-ion traction batteries with focus on greenhouse gas emissions. Transp Res D 55: 82-90. doi: 10.1016/j.trd.2017.06.028

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2020 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)