skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Cradle-to-Grave 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

Abstract

This study provides a comprehensive life-cycle analysis (LCA), or cradle-to-grave (C2G) analysis, of the cost and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of a variety of vehicle-fuel pathways, as well as the levelized cost of driving (LCD) and cost of avoided GHG emissions. This study also estimates the technology readiness levels (TRLs) of key fuel and vehicle technologies along the pathways. The C2G analysis spans a full portfolio of midsize light-duty vehicles (LDVs), including conventional internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs), flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs), hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), battery electric vehicles (BEVs), and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs). In evaluating the vehicle-fuel combinations, this study considers both low-volume and high-volume “CURRENT TECHNOLOGY” cases (nominally 2015) and a high-volume “FUTURE TECHNOLOGY” lower-carbon case (nominally 2025–2030). For the CURRENT TECHNOLOGY case, low-volume vehicle and fuel production pathways are examined to determine costs in the near term.

Authors:
 [1];  [1];  [2];  [2];  [2];  [2];  [3];  [3];  [4];  [5];  [6];  [7];  [8]
  1. Argonne National Lab. (ANL), Argonne, IL (United States)
  2. Dept. of Energy (DOE), Washington DC (United States)
  3. National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL), Golden, CO (United States)
  4. Electric Power Research Inst. (EPRI), Palo Alto, CA (United States)
  5. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (FCA) US LLC, Auburn Hills, MI (United States)
  6. General Motors, Warren, MI (United States)
  7. Chevron Corporation, San Ramon, CA (United States)
  8. Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Argonne National Lab. (ANL), Argonne, IL (United States); National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL), Golden, CO (United States); Dept. of Energy (DOE), Washington DC (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Fuel Cell Technologies Office (EE-3F); USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Vehicle Technologies Office (EE-3V)
OSTI Identifier:
1324467
Report Number(s):
ANL/ESD-16/7 Rev. 1
130244; TRN: US1700053
DOE Contract Number:
AC02-06CH11357
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
02 PETROLEUM; 33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS; ELECTRIC-POWERED VEHICLES; FUELS; INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES; COST; EMISSION; ELECTRIC BATTERIES; GREENHOUSE GASES; FUEL CELLS; LOW-EMISSION VEHICLES; ECONOMIC ANALYSIS; AIR POLLUTION ABATEMENT; HYBRID ELECTRIC-POWERED VEHICLES; LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Citation Formats

Elgowainy, Amgad, Han, Jeongwoo, Ward, Jacob, Joseck, Fred, Gohlke, David, Lindauer, Alicia, Ramsden, Todd, Biddy, Mary, Alexander, Marcus, Barnhart, Steven, Sutherland, Ian, Verduzco, Laura, and Wallington, Timothy J. Cradle-to-Grave 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. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.2172/1324467.
Elgowainy, Amgad, Han, Jeongwoo, Ward, Jacob, Joseck, Fred, Gohlke, David, Lindauer, Alicia, Ramsden, Todd, Biddy, Mary, Alexander, Marcus, Barnhart, Steven, Sutherland, Ian, Verduzco, Laura, & Wallington, Timothy J. Cradle-to-Grave 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. United States. doi:10.2172/1324467.
Elgowainy, Amgad, Han, Jeongwoo, Ward, Jacob, Joseck, Fred, Gohlke, David, Lindauer, Alicia, Ramsden, Todd, Biddy, Mary, Alexander, Marcus, Barnhart, Steven, Sutherland, Ian, Verduzco, Laura, and Wallington, Timothy J. 2016. "Cradle-to-Grave 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". United States. doi:10.2172/1324467. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1324467.
@article{osti_1324467,
title = {Cradle-to-Grave 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},
author = {Elgowainy, Amgad and Han, Jeongwoo and Ward, Jacob and Joseck, Fred and Gohlke, David and Lindauer, Alicia and Ramsden, Todd and Biddy, Mary and Alexander, Marcus and Barnhart, Steven and Sutherland, Ian and Verduzco, Laura and Wallington, Timothy J.},
abstractNote = {This study provides a comprehensive life-cycle analysis (LCA), or cradle-to-grave (C2G) analysis, of the cost and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of a variety of vehicle-fuel pathways, as well as the levelized cost of driving (LCD) and cost of avoided GHG emissions. This study also estimates the technology readiness levels (TRLs) of key fuel and vehicle technologies along the pathways. The C2G analysis spans a full portfolio of midsize light-duty vehicles (LDVs), including conventional internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs), flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs), hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), battery electric vehicles (BEVs), and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs). In evaluating the vehicle-fuel combinations, this study considers both low-volume and high-volume “CURRENT TECHNOLOGY” cases (nominally 2015) and a high-volume “FUTURE TECHNOLOGY” lower-carbon case (nominally 2025–2030). For the CURRENT TECHNOLOGY case, low-volume vehicle and fuel production pathways are examined to determine costs in the near term.},
doi = {10.2172/1324467},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 9
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share:
  • This study provides a comprehensive lifecycle analysis (LCA), or cradle-to-grave (C2G) analysis, of the cost and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of a variety of vehicle-fuel pathways, as well as the levelized cost of driving (LCD) and cost of avoided GHG emissions. This study also estimates the technology readiness levels (TRLs) of key fuel and vehicle technologies along the pathways. The C2G analysis spans a full portfolio of midsize light-duty vehicles (LDVs), including conventional internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs), flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs), hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), battery electric vehicles (BEVs), and fuel cell electric vehiclesmore » (FCEVs). In evaluating the vehicle-fuel combinations, this study considers both low-volume and high-volume “CURRENT TECHNOLOGY” cases (nominally 2015) and a high-volume “FUTURE TECHNOLOGY” lower-carbon case (nominally 2025–2030). For the CURRENT TECHNOLOGY case, low-volume vehicle and fuel production pathways are examined to determine costs in the near term.« less
  • Trends in fuel switching by motorists during the period 1978 through 1981 were assessed with the use of two data bases of monthly household purchases of gasoline. Fuel switching was defined as either misfueling - the use of leaded gasoline in cars that require unleaded fuel - or discretionary switching - the use of unleaded gasoline in cars which can operate on leaded fuel. To identify disaggregated patterns of fuel switching, the data were stratified by year, season, census region, type of service station outlet, vehicle category and vintage. In addition, the relationship of trends in misfueling rates to changesmore » in the relative prices of unleaded and leaded gasoline also was examined. Drawing upon the analysis of current data, three alternative future trends in misfueling rates by vehicle vintage were constructed. The impact of each of these cases on projections of the market share of leaded gasoline was examined with the aid of a previously developed model of highway fuel demand.« less
  • The report provides a methodology for analyzing full fuel cycle emissions of alternative fuels for vehicles. Included in this analysis is an assessment of the following fuel cycles relevant to vehicle use: gasoline, reformulated gasoline, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, electric power (with onboard battery storage), ethanol, and methanol fuels. The analysis focuses on basic criteria pollutants (reactive organic gases, nitrous oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfurous oxides, and particulates less than 10 microns (PM10)). Emissions of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide) are also defined. The analysis was conducted for two cases, United States and the State of Californiamore » and two time frames, current and year 2000.« less
  • I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the joint rulemaking to establish greenhouse gas emission and fuel economy standards for light-duty vehicles. My comments are directed at the choice of vehicle footprint as the attribute by which to vary fuel economy and greenhouse gas emission standards, in the interest of protecting vehicle occupants from death or serious injury. I have made several of these points before when commenting on previous NHTSA rulemakings regarding CAFE standards and safety. The comments today are mine alone, and do not necessarily represent the views of the US Department of Energy, Lawrence Berkeley Nationalmore » Laboratory, or the University of California. My comments can be summarized as follows: (1) My updated analysis of casualty risk finds that, after accounting for drivers and crash location, there is a wide range in casualty risk for vehicles with the same weight or footprint. This suggests that reducing vehicle weight or footprint will not necessarily result in increased fatalities or serious injuries. (2) Indeed, the recent safety record of crossover SUVs indicates that weight reduction in this class of vehicles resulted in a reduction in fatality risks. (3) Computer crash simulations can pinpoint the effect of specific design changes on vehicle safety; these analyses are preferable to regression analyses, which rely on historical vehicle designs, and cannot fully isolate the effect of specific design changes, such as weight reduction, on crash outcomes. (4) There is evidence that automakers planned to build more large light trucks in response to the footprint-based light truck CAFE standards. Such an increase in the number of large light trucks on the road may decrease, rather than increase, overall safety.« less
  • Tom Wenzel of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory comments on the joint rulemaking to establish greenhouse gas emission and fuel economy standards for light-duty vehicle, specifically on the relationship between vehicle weight and vehicle safety.