4.7 Article

Environmental impacts and behavioral drivers of deep decarbonization for transportation through electric vehicles

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
Volume 225, Issue -, Pages 1209-1219

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.334

Keywords

Lifecycle emission; Lifecycle cost; Electric vehicle; Optimization; LCA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Transportation accounts for about 30% of the total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the United States. To reduce GHG emissions, significant changes in the transportation fleet have been considered, with electric vehicles as one of the alternatives that could potentially reduce GHG emissions. This paper presents a comprehensive lifecycle emission and cost comparison among electric vehicles. Hybrid electric vehicles (HEV), plug in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), full battery electric vehicles (EVs), hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs) are compared with gasoline vehicle as the base case. Since the selection among these electric vehicles depends on several factors, external costs of emission, fuel, time loss, charging time loss and maintenance cost are considered. The results show that the most environmentally benign vehicles in terms of GHG emission are FCEV and full EVs, which is approximately half of the emission by Internal combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles. The results also show that both FCVs and EVs have better air quality related emission reduction compared to ICE vehicle which results in approximately accounts for 84% reduction. The lifecycle cost results show that HEVs have the lowest lifecycle cost among all the selected vehicles, with the cost of $0.38 per mile. In addition, the effect of Carbon damage cost on total lifecycle cost is investigated. The results show that an increase in Carbon damage cost results in the penetration of HEVs and EVs to the market share. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available