Method of Comparative Analysis of Energy Consumption in Passenger Car Fleets with Internal Combustion, Hybrid, Battery Electric, and Hydrogen Powertrains in Long-Term European Operating Conditions

Developing an Eco-Cooperative Automated Control System (Eco-CAC)

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.

The transportation sector is generally thought to be contributing up to 25% of all greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions globally. Hence, reducing the usage of fossil fuels by the introduction of electrified powertrain technologies such as hybrid electric vehicle (HEV), battery electric vehicle (BEV) and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle (FCEV) is perceived as a way towards a more sustainable future. With a seemingly more significant shift towards BEV development and roll-out, the research and development of BEV technologies has taken on increasing importance in improving BEV performance and ensuring its competitiveness. Numerical simulation, using MATLAB, is performed as a tool to investigate and to improve the overall performance of BEVs. This study provides an overview of the possible technology outcome and market consequences for future compact BEVs along with HEVs, FCEVs and internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEV). The techno-economics of BEVs, market projection and cost analysis up to 2050 are investigated, as are important BEV characteristics alongside those of other types of vehicles. Well-to-wheel analysis of BEVs is also studied and compared with HEV, FCEV and ICE.

Transport-related activities represented 34% of the total carbon emissions in the UK in 2022 and heavy-duty vehicles (HGVs) accounted for one-fifth of the road transport greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Currently, battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) are considered as suitable replacements for diesel fleets. However, these technologies continue to face techno-economic barriers, creating uncertainty for fleet operators wanting to transition away from diesel-powered internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). This paper assesses the performance and cost competitiveness of BEV and FCEV powertrain solutions in the hard-to-abate HGV sector. The study evaluates the impact of battery degradation and a carbon tax on the cost of owning the vehicles. An integrated total cost of ownership (TCO) model, which includes these factors for the first time, is developed to study a large retailer's HGV fleet operating in the UK. The modelling framework compares the capital expenditures (CAPEX) and operating expenses (OPEX) of alternative technologies against ICEVs. The TCO of BEVs and FCEVs are 11% to 33% and 37% to 78% higher than ICEVs; respectively. Despite these differences, by adopting a longer lifetime for the vehicle it can effectively narrow the cost gap. Alternatively, cost parity with ICEVs could be achieved if BEV battery cost reduces by 56% or if FCEV fuel cell cost reduces by 60%. Besides, the pivot point for hydrogen price is determined at £2.5 per kg. The findings suggest that BEV is closer to market as its TCO value is becoming competitive, whereas FCEV provides a more viable solution than BEV for long-haul applications due to shorter refuelling time and lower load capacity penalties. Furthermore, degradation of performance in lithium-ion batteries is found to have a minor impact on TCO if battery replacement is not required. However, critical component replacement and warranty can influence commercial viability. Given the high costs, we propose financial incentives and vehicle tax reforms to reduce costs of critical components that will encourage the roll-out of zero emission HGVs.

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 time frame 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.

The impact of human behavior on vehicle efficiency has been vastly explored for internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. However, human behavioral impacts on vehicle efficiency have not yet transitioned to include battery electric vehicles (BEVs). Understanding the impact of human behavior that achieves BEV efficiency is essential globally, as BEVs begin to retain a significant portion of the automotive market share. BEV sales trends in the US have seen consistent growth since 2010, amounting to over 200,000 units sold by 2015. Globally, the total amount of BEVs and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) is expected to be 40-70 million by 2025. In light of the growth estimates, defining behavior that induces efficient energy consumption when driving BEVs is essential as these vehicles have a traveling distance constrained to 60-120 miles and can require 1-8 hours to attain a fully charged battery at commercial charging stations. With firm traveling distances and long charging times, defining human behavioral impacts on BEV efficiency will allow drivers to get the most range out of their vehicle. In order to develop categories of BEV drivers in terms of efficiency, an empirical experiment was conducted to determine if clustering drivers on their energy consumption profiles invokes significant categories. The driving attributes that defined the clusters were extracted to compare whether or not efficient BEV driving is similar to eco-driving in ICE vehicles. Furthermore, BEV drivers can suffer from anxiety that stems from limited traveling distance, a phenomenon known as range anxiety. However, there exist other sources of anxiety-related human driving behavior, three of which can be measured using the driving behavior survey (DBS). The three anxiety measures from the DBS were contrasted against the BEV efficiency clusters found from this research, to determine if the anxiety factors defined by the DBS were responsible for efficient BEV driving. The results from this research found two significantly different clusters of BEV driving efficiency, which were defined as efficient and inefficient BEV driving. In comparison to eco-driving in ICE vehicles, both aggressive speed and acceleration were found to be contributing factors to BEV efficiency. The results from the DBS proved that anxiety was not a contributing factor to BEV efficiency, as both clusters had similar answers. The information accumulated through this research can be used to guide new BEV drivers to adopt sustainable driving behaviors, which can help maximize their traveling distance on a single charge. Behavioral contributions to

Since majority of electricity in China is generated from coal and natural gas, the study carried out WTW analyses for battery electric vehicles (BEVs) using China’s various thermal power generation technologies and compare their total energy use and GHG emissions against gasoline or diesel internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs), as well as hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs). The WTW analyses of BEVs, HEVs and ICEVs were conducted using the GREET (Greenhouse gases, regulated emissions, and energy use in Transportation) model developed by Argonne National Lab combined with a localized database of Chinese domestic data. A 2011 mid-size gasoline car is used as a baseline. Two types of BEV assumed in this study: Common BEVs and High-efficient BEVs. Common BEV pathways will save up to 99 % petrol consumption. However, comparing to that of HEV pathway, WTW energy consumption of all Common BEV pathways will be increased, with a maximum of 71 %. WTW energy consumption of High-efficient BEVs will be 2–29 % less than the WTW energy in the HEV pathway. GHG emissions of Common BEVs depend on differences in power generation technologies. Without CCS, the WTW GHG emissions of Common BEVs using coal-fired electricity are 11–77 % higher than the WTW GHG emissions of the baseline. When USC and IGCC generation technologies are equipped with CCS, the WTW GHG emissions of High-efficient BEVs are 79–83 % less than that of the baseline, and 69–75 % less than the hybrid pathway. This is the first time that a WTW analysis in China at this magnitude was completed with a fully localized fuel-cycle database. Outcomes of the study provide more relevance and accuracy for both the government and industry to develop strategies and policies in China. The model and database developed in this study can be used for analysis both at national and regional levels. This study did not include the energy use and GHG emissions in vehicle manufacturing stage. Although it is a small portion in the analysis, it could provide understanding of the difference in vehicle manufacturing process between EVs and traditional gasoline vehicles. This paper shows that the Common BEVs currently demonstrated are not a silver bullet for attacking energy consumption challenges and GHG emissions. In China context, full HEVs seem more attractive than Common BEVs to deal with energy security and GHG reduction challenge today. In order to achieve GHG reduction targets through vehicle electrification, China must promote CCS technology to help USC and IGCC power plants deliver low-carbon transportation energy on supply side. At the same time, High-efficient BEVs have to be set as the highest priority of automotive technology development.KeywordsElectric vehicleWell-to-Wheel AnalysisGHG emissionsThermal power generationChina

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of BEV’s environmental benefits for meeting the challenge of ICExit (Internal Combustion Engine Exit)

Evaluating Vibration Test Profiles for Battery Electric and Hybrid Vehicles

Volatility in energy markets has made the purchase of battery electric vehicles (BEV) or hybrid vehicles (HEVs) attractive versus internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). However, the total cost of ownership (TCO) and true environmental effects, are difficult to assess. This study provides a publicly available, user-driven simulation that estimates the consumer and environmental costs for various vehicle purchase options, supporting policymaker, producer, and consumer information requirements. It appears to be the first to provide a publicly available, user interactive simulation that compares two purchase options simultaneously. It is likely that the first paper to simulate the effects of solar recharging of electric vehicles (EV) on both cost-benefit for the consumer and environmental benefit (e.g., carbon dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, non-methane organic gasses, particulate matter, and formaldehyde) simultaneously, demonstrating how, as an example, solar-based charging of BEVs and HEVs reduces carbon emissions over grid-based charging. Two specific scenarios are explicated, and the results of show early break-even for both BEV and Plug-in HEV (PHEV) options over ICEV (13 months, and 12 months, respectively) with CO2 emissions about ½ that of the gasoline option (including production emissions.) The results of these simulations are congruent with previous research that identified quick break-even for HEVs versus ICEV.

A comparison of technologies for carbon-neutral passenger transport

Driving discussion: Media framing of electric, hydrogen, and conventional vehicles in German newspapers and Twitter

A comparative total cost of ownership analysis of heavy duty on-road and off-road vehicles powered by hydrogen, electricity, and diesel

PurposeThis study compares the environmental impacts of transitioning from a business-as-usual (BaU) internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) pathway to one adopting battery electric vehicles (BEVs) in Qatar from 2022 to 2050. The analysis is based on geographically representative empirical data, focusing exclusively on the light-duty, personal vehicle sector. The research explores environmental performance trends, uncertainties, and potential implications of transitioning from ICEVs to BEVs within the Qatar National Vision (QNV) 2030 framework.MethodsUtilising the ReCiPe method, this time-dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) assessed a range of relevant environmental impact categories: global warming potential, particulate matter, human toxicity, acidification and resource depletion. This analysis incorporates different light-duty vehicle (LDV) types such as sedans, sport utility vehicle (SUVs) and sport vehicles. The impacts of potential technological advancements, such as in fuel efficiency for ICEVs and charging electricity supply and/or battery technology for the BEVs, were included to provide a more encompassing view of the environmental implications of both vehicle types.Results and discussionDecreasing environmental impact for ICEVs and BEVs is observed, with BEVs’ greater potential in reducing Qatar’s transport sector’s carbon footprint. Uncertainties emerged as this potential decrease was not seen in all impact categories, nor vehicle technology or timeframe. This stresses the BEV’s transition importance of production location and energy sources. This was observed for the carbon footprint and overarching environmental impact of battery production, exacerbated in regions reliant on fossil fuel electricity. Qatar, endowed with substantial fossil fuel reserves, relies on natural gas for electricity provision; therefore, the potential benefits of introducing BEVs are limited without strong shifts to renewables. Further research in vehicle production, disposal and technological advancements will prove essential, especially in a maturing sector like electric vehicle production and processing.ConclusionsBEVs have the potential to reduce the environmental impacts of Qatar’s transport sector. Yet, the short payback period for newer BEVs is linked with the greenhouse gas intensity of electricity production, emphasising the dual challenge for Qatar with its reliance on fossil fuels. Considering environmental, economic and societal facets, a transition taking into account all facets of sustainability and not purely the introduction of BEVs is imperative in aligning with Qatar’s 2030 sustainable vision.RecommendationsA clear understanding of the socio-economic and environmental aspects of the ICEV-BEV transition is urgently required, emphasising production, disposal and technological innovations. Exploring alternative batteries and recycling methods can offer pathways to mitigate environmental concerns associated with BEVs. Regions like Qatar are underrepresented in the available literature, yet should be part of the research on sustainable transitions to provide insights on the opportunity and co-benefits that arise from the development of relevant sustainability transition planning.

Global warming (GW) and urban pollution focused a great interest on hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) and battery electric vehicles (BEVs) as cleaner alternatives to traditional internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). The environmental impact related to the use of both ICEV and HEV mainly depends on the fossil fuel used by the thermal engines, while, in the case of the BEV, depends on the energy sources employed to produce electricity. Moreover, the production phase of each vehicle may also have a relevant environmental impact, due to the manufacturing processes and the materials employed. Starting from these considerations, the authors carried out a fair comparison of the environmental impact generated by three different vehicles characterized by different propulsion technology, i.e., an ICEV, an HEV, and a BEV, following the life cycle analysis methodology, i.e., taking into account five different environmental impact categories generated during all phases of the entire life of the vehicles, from raw material collection and parts production, to vehicle assembly and on-road use, finishing hence with the disposal phase. An extensive scenario analysis was also performed considering different electricity mixes and vehicle lifetime mileages. The results of this study confirmed the importance of the life cycle approach for the correct determination of the real impact related to the use of passenger cars and showed that the GW impact of a BEV during its entire life amounts to roughly 60% of an equivalent ICEV, while acidifying emissions and particulate matter were doubled. The HEV confirmed an excellent alternative to ICEV, showing good compromise between GW impact (85% with respect to the ICEV), terrestrial acidification, and particulate formation (similar to the ICEV). In regard to the mineral source deployment, a serious concern derives from the lithium-ion battery production for BEV. The results of the scenario analysis highlight how the environmental impact of a BEV may be altered by the lifetime mileage of the vehicle, and how the carbon footprint of the electricity used may nullify the ecological advantage of the BEV.