Review of the Fuel Saving, Life Cycle GHG Emission, and Ownership Cost Impacts of Lightweighting Vehicles with Different Powertrains.

The literature analyzing the fuel saving, life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emission, and ownership cost impacts of lightweighting vehicles with different powertrains is reviewed. Vehicles with lower powertrain efficiencies have higher fuel consumption. Thus, fuel savings from lightweighting internal combustion engine vehicles can be higher than those of hybrid electric and battery electric vehicles. However, the impact of fuel savings on life cycle costs and GHG emissions depends on fuel prices, fuel carbon intensities and fuel storage requirements. Battery electric vehicle fuel savings enable reduction of battery size without sacrificing driving range. This reduces the battery production cost and mass, the latter results in further fuel savings. The carbon intensity of electricity varies widely and is a major source of uncertainty when evaluating the benefits of fuel savings. Hybrid electric vehicles use gasoline more efficiently than internal combustion engine vehicles and do not require large plug-in batteries. Therefore, the benefits of lightweighting depend on the vehicle powertrain. We discuss the value proposition of the use of lightweight materials and alternative powertrains. Future assessments of the benefits of vehicle lightweighting should capture the unique characteristics of emerging vehicle powertrains.

Life cycle air emissions impacts and ownership costs of light-duty vehicles using natural gas as a primary energy source.

This paper aims to comprehensively distinguish among the merits of different vehicles using a common primary energy source. In this study, we consider compressed natural gas (CNG) use directly in conventional vehicles (CV) and hybrid electric vehicles (HEV), and natural gas-derived electricity (NG-e) use in plug-in battery electric vehicles (BEV). This study evaluates the incremental life cycle air emissions (climate change and human health) impacts and life cycle ownership costs of non-plug-in (CV and HEV) and plug-in light-duty vehicles. Replacing a gasoline CV with a CNG CV, or a CNG CV with a CNG HEV, can provide life cycle air emissions impact benefits without increasing ownership costs; however, the NG-e BEV will likely increase costs (90% confidence interval: $1000 to $31 000 incremental cost per vehicle lifetime). Furthermore, eliminating HEV tailpipe emissions via plug-in vehicles has an insignificant incremental benefit, due to high uncertainties, with emissions cost benefits between -$1000 and $2000. Vehicle criteria air contaminants are a relatively minor contributor to life cycle air emissions impacts because of strict vehicle emissions standards. Therefore, policies should focus on adoption of plug-in vehicles in nonattainment regions, because CNG vehicles are likely more cost-effective at providing overall life cycle air emissions impact benefits.

Ethanol or bioelectricity? Life cycle assessment of lignocellulosic bioenergy use in light-duty vehicles.

Our study evaluates life cycle energy use and GHG emissions of lignocellulosic ethanol and bioelectricity use in U.S. light-duty vehicles. The well-to-pump, pump-to-wheel, and vehicle cycle stages are modeled. All ethanol (E85) and bioelectricity pathways have similar life cycle fossil energy use (~ 100 MJ/100 vehicle kilometers traveled (VKT)) and net GHG emissions (~5 kg CO2eq./100 VKT), considerably lower (65-85%) than those of reference gasoline and U.S. grid-electricity pathways. E85 use in a hybrid vehicle and bioelectricity use in a fully electric vehicle also have similar life cycle biomass and total energy use (~ 350 and ~450 MJ/100 VKT, respectively); differences in well-to-pump and pump-to-wheel efficiencies can largely offset each other. Our energy use and net GHG emissions results contrast with findings in literature, which report better performance on these metrics for bioelectricity compared to ethanol. The primary source of differences in the studies is related to our development of pathways with comparable vehicle characteristics. Ethanol or vehicle electrification can reduce petroleum use, while bioelectricity may displace nonpetroleum energy sources. Regional characteristics may create conditions under which either ethanol or bioelectricity may be the superior option; however, neither has a clear advantage in terms of GHG emissions or energy use.