4.7 Article

Carbon and energy footprints of electric delivery trucks: A hybrid multi-regional input-output life cycle assessment

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.trd.2016.05.014

关键词

Commercial delivery truck; Battery electric trucks; Regional carbon footprint analysis Hybrid life cycle assessment; Multi-regional input-output analysis

资金

  1. University of Central Florida, from US Department of Transportation's University Transportation Centers Program [DTRT13-G-UTC51]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Due to frequent stop-and-go operation and long idling periods when driving in congested urban areas, the electrification of commercial delivery trucks has become an interesting topic nationwide. In this study, environmental impacts of various alternative delivery trucks including battery electric, diesel, diesel-electric hybrid, and compressed natural gas trucks are analyzed. A novel life cycle assessment method, an environmentally extended multi-region input-output analysis, is utilized to calculate energy and carbon footprints throughout the supply chain of alternative delivery trucks. The uncertainties due to fuel consumption or other key parameter variations in real life, data ranges are taken into consideration using a Monte Carlo simulation. Furthermore, variations in regional electricity mix greenhouse gas emission are also considered to present a region-specific assessment for each vehicle type. According to the analysis results, although the battery electric delivery trucks have zero tailpipe emission, electric trucks are not expected to have lower environmental impacts compared to other alternatives. On average, the electric trucks have slightly more greenhouse emissions and energy consumption than those of other trucks. The regional analysis also indicates that the percentage of cleaner power sources in the electricity mix plays an important role in the life cycle greenhouse gas emission impacts of electric trucks. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据