Electric urban delivery trucks: Energy use, greenhouse gas emissions, and cost-effectiveness

Environmental Science and Technology

Volumn 47, Issue 14, 2013, Pages 8022-8030

  Lee, Dong Yeon ^a   Thomas, Valerie M ^a,b   Brown, Marilyn A ^b  

^a Georgia Institute of Technology   (United States)

^b GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUTOMOBILES; COSTS; DIESEL FUELS; ELECTRIC DRIVES; ELECTRIC GENERATORS; ENERGY UTILIZATION; GREENHOUSE GASES;

BATTERY REPLACEMENTS; ELECTRIC TRUCK; ELECTRICITY GENERATION; PURCHASE PRICE; TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP; TRANSMISSION EFFICIENCY; URBAN DELIVERY; VEHICLE EFFICIENCY;

TRUCKS;

DIESEL FUEL; GAS;

ARRAY; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ELECTRICITY GENERATION; EMISSION CONTROL; ENERGY CONSERVATION; GREENHOUSE GAS; LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS; URBAN AREA;

ARTICLE; CARBON FOOTPRINT; CLIMATE CHANGE; COAL POWER; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; ELECTRICITY; ENERGY CONSUMPTION; EXHAUST GAS; GREENHOUSE EFFECT; GREENHOUSE GAS; LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT; MONTE CARLO METHOD; WASTE DISPOSAL; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; GAS; TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORT;

NEW YORK [NEW YORK (STT)]; NEW YORK [UNITED STATES]; UNITED STATES;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ELECTRICITY; GASES; GREENHOUSE EFFECT; TRANSPORTATION;

EID: 84880537233     PISSN: 0013936X     EISSN: 15205851     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1021/es400179w     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Heavy-Duty Truck Activity Data; U.S. DOT, Federal Highway Administration: Washington, D.C., 1999.
2. FedEx Express Gasoline Hybrid Electric Delivery Truck Evaluation: 12-Month Report; U.S. DOE, National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, 2011.
3. Hellgren, J. Life cycle cost analysis of a car, a city bus and an intercity bus powertrain for year 2005 and 2020 Energy Policy 2007, 35 (1) 39-49
4. Martin, C. Battery-Powered Trucks: Toys No More. Bloomberg Businessweek, January 25, 2011.
5. Plug-In Electric Vehicle Handbook for Fleet Managers; U.S. DOE, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 2012; www.afdc.energy.gov/pdfs/pev- handbook.pdf (accessed July 25, 2012).
6. Offer, G. J.; Howey, D.; Contestabile, M.; Clague, R.; Brandon, N. P. Comparative analysis of battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid vehicles in a future sustainable road transport system Energy Policy 2010, 38 (1) 24-29
7. 2 emissions of electric cars J. Power Sources 2011, 196 (4) 2298-2310
8. Feng, W.; Figliozzi, M. An economic and technological analysis of the key factors affecting the competitiveness of electric commercial vehicles: A case study from the USA market Transp. Res., Part C 2013, 26135-145 10.1016/j.trc.2012.06.007
9. Davis, B.; Figliozzi, M. A methodology to evaluate the competitiveness of electric delivery trucks Transp. Res., Part E 2013, 498-23 10.1016/j.tre.2012. 07.003
10. 2 emissions from battery electric vehicles given the power generation mixes of different countries Energy Policy 2011, 39 (2) 803-811
11. 2 emissions Appl. Energy 2011, 88 (7) 2315-2323
12. International Standard 14040: Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Principles and Framework; International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
13. International Standard 14044: Environmental Management-Life Cycle Assessment-Requirements and Guidelines; International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
14. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007; World Meteorological Organization, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland; http://www.ipcc.ch/publications-and-data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-5.html (accessed March 25, 2012).
15. Transportation Energy Data Book, 29 th ed.; U.S. DOE, Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Oak Ridge, TN, 2010.
16. Vehicle Technologies Program-Smith Newton Vehicle Performance Evaluation; U.S. DOE, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2013; http://www.nrel.gov/docs/ fy13osti/58108.pdf (accessed April 28, 2013).
17. Smith Electric Vehicles. Technical Specifications; http://www. smithelectricvehicles.com (accessed June 15, 2011).
18. 2 gas emission rates from coal, fission, wind, and DT-fusion electrical power plants Fusion Eng. Des. 2000, 48 (248) 473-481
19. Gagnon, L. Civilisation and energy payback Energy Policy 2008, 36 (9) 3317-3322
20. eGRID2012 Version 1.0; U.S. EPA; www.epa.gov/egrid (accessed July 27, 2012).
21. 2 Emissions from Helium-3 Fusion and Wind Electrical Power Plants. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, 1998.
22. Reclamation: Managing Water in the West; U.S. DOI, Bureau of Reclamation, Power Resources Office: Washington, DC, 2005.
23. Pope, K.; Dincer, I.; Naterer, G. F. Energy and exergy efficiency comparison of horizontal and vertical axis wind turbines Renewable Energy 2010, 35, 2102-2113
24. Annual Energy Review 2011; U.S. DOE, Energy Information Administration: Washington, DC, 2012.
25. Ma, H.; Riera-Palou, X.; Harrison, A. Development of a new tank-to-wheels methodology for energy use and green house gas emissions analysis based on vehicle fleet modeling Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2011, 16 (4) 285-296
26. Electric Power Monthly-April 2012; U.S. DOE, Energy Information Administration: Washington, DC, 2011; http://205.254.135.24/electricity/monthly (accessed April 8, 2012).
27. Schafer, A.; Heywood, J.; Weiss, M. Future fuel cell and internal combustion engine automobile technologies: A 25-year life cycle and fleet impact assessment Energy 2006, 31 (12) 2064-2087
28. Huai, T.; Shah, S. D.; Wayne Miller, J.; Younglove, T.; Chernich, D. J.; Ayala, A. Analysis of heavy-duty diesel truck activity and emissions data Atmos. Environ. 2006, 40 (13) 2333-2344
29. Meier, P.; Wilson, P.; Kulcinski, G.; Denholm, P. US electric industry response to carbon constraint: A life-cycle assessment of supply side alternatives Energy Policy 2005, 33 (9) 1099-1108
30. Annual Energy Outlook 2011; U.S. DOE, Energy Information Administration: Washington, DC, 2011.
31. Jaramillo, P.; Griffin, W. M.; Matthews, H. S. Comparative life-cycle air emissions of coal, domestic natural gas, LNG, and SNG for electricity generation Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 6290-6
32. Fthenakis, V. M.; Kim, H. C. Greenhouse-gas emissions from solar electric- and nuclear power: A life-cycle study Energy Policy 2007, 35 (4) 2549-2557
33. Raadal, H. L.; Gagnon, L.; Modahl, I. S.; Hanssen, O. J. Life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the generation of wind and hydro power Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 2011, 15 (7) 3417-3422
34. Development of Baseline Data and Analysis of Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Petroleum-Based Fuels; U.S. DOE, National Energy Technology Laboratory: Golden, CO, 2008.
35. Well-to-Tank Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Transportation Fuels-North American Analysis; General Motors Corporation; U.S. DOE Argonne National Laboratory; BP; ExxonMobil; Shell; http://www.transportation.anl.gov/ pdfs/TA/165.pdf (accessed June 20, 2011).
36. Creutzig, F.; McGlynn, E.; Minx, J.; Edenhofer, O. Climate policies for road transport revisited (I): Evaluation of the current framework Energy Policy 2011, 39 (5) 2396-2406
37. Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA) US 2002 (428) Model; Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Institute; www.eiolca.net (accessed April 23, 2012).
38. Valence. Valence Battery Modules Spreadsheet; http://www.valence.com (accessed February 6, 2012).
39. Lucas, A.; Silva, C. A.; Neto, R. C. Life cycle analysis of energy supply infrastructure for conventional and electric vehicles Energy Policy 2012, 41, 537-547
40. Sullivan, J. L.; Gaines, L. Status of life cycle inventories for batteries Energy Convers. Manage. 2012, 58, 134-148
41. Carlsson, F.; Johansson-Stenman, O. Costs and benefits of electric vehicles: A 2010 perspective J. Transport Econ. Policy 2003, 37 (1) 1-28
42. 2 aspects of future vehicle options in Europe under new energy policy scenarios Energy Policy 2010, 38 (11) 7142-7151
43. Motavalli, J. Frito-Lay Adds Electric Trucks to Its Fleet. The New York Times, September 8, 2010; http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/08/frito-lay- adds-electric-trucks-to-its-fleet (accessed June 20, 2011).
44. Werber, M.; Fischer, M.; Schwartz, P. V. Batteries: Lower cost than gasoline? Energy Policy 2009, 37 (7) 2465-2468
45. Ramsey, M. As Electric Vehicles Arrive, Firms See Payback in Trucks. The Wall Street Journal, December 7, 2010; http://online.wsj.com/article/ SB10001424052748704584804575644773552573304.html (accessed October 22, 2012).
46. Valence. U-Charge® XP Specifications; http://www.valence.com (accessed October 10, 2012).
47. Valence. U-Charge® U1-12RT Specifications; http://www.valence.com (accessed October 10, 2012).
48. Diamond, D. The impact of government incentives for hybrid-electric vehicles: Evidence from US states Energy Policy 2008, 37, 972-983
49. Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update; U.S. DOE, Energy Information Administration: Washington, DC, 2011; http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel (accessed August 10, 2011).
50. Short-Term Energy and Summer Fuels Outlook; U.S. DOE, Energy Information Administration: Washington, DC, 2011; http://205.254.135.7/forecasts/steo/ report/electricity.cfm (accessed August 10, 2011).
51. Fuel Economy Improves Notably in Medium-Duty Engines, Driving an Increase in Owner Satisfaction; J.D. Power and Associates; JDPower.com (accessed December 20, 2012).
52. Transportation Demand Module; U.S. DOE, Energy Information Administration: Washington, DC, 2012; www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/assumptions/pdf/ transportation.pdf (accessed December 21, 2012).
53. Saltelli, A.; Annoni, Paola. How to avoid a perfunctory sensitivity analysis Environ. Modell. Software 2010, 25, 1508-1517
54. Baveye, P.; Recommended practices in global sensitivity analysis. In Uncertainties In Environmental Modelling & Consequences For Policy Making; Saltelli, A.; Vidoni, D.; Mascherini, M., Eds.; Springer: Published in cooperation with NATO Public Diplomacy Division; pp 183-202; doi: 10.1007/978-90-481-2636-1-8.