Assessing life cycle impacts and the risk and uncertainty of alternative bus technologies

Abstract Low-emission alternative bus technologies are of increasing interest to bus fleet operators due to the reduced environmental impact and potential for lower operating costs. However, with uncertainty regarding the total cost of ownership of new technologies and life cycle impacts beyond the typical well-to-wheel boundary, stakeholders may not have the necessary specific tools or evidence to evaluate life cycle impacts. The aim of this paper is to develop a novel framework to assist decision-makers in assessing the uncertainty of the life cycle impacts of alternative bus technologies. The Technology Impact Forecasting methodology was employed, integrating a life cycle model, to investigate whole life cycle impacts in an exploratory assessment environment, allowing for the analysis and trade-off evaluations of alternative drivetrain technologies and operational scenarios. This research provides a comprehensive novel framework for addressing uncertainty in whole life cycle costs and GHG emissions for the manufacture, use, maintenance and infrastructure phases of diesel and battery electric buses. Eleven scenarios are assessed in the framework, evaluating combinations of battery technologies, well-to-tank pathways, charging infrastructure and auxiliary demands. For every battery electric bus scenario, there is an 80% confidence that life cycle GHG emissions are mitigated by 10–58% compared to the baseline diesel bus, but life cycle costs are 129–247% higher. Opportunity charged electric buses employing a lithium-titanate battery are the most effective scenario for mitigating GHG emissions per additional cost of the new technology to the operator. The framework highlights a key trade-off between dependence on battery capacity and high-power charging infrastructure for battery electric bus technologies. The framework enables stakeholders to make technology adoption and resource allocation decisions based on the risk of a scenario and provides a level of confidence in a technologies’ ability to mitigate whole life cycle impacts.

[1]  Manfred Lenzen,et al.  Errors in Conventional and Input‐Output—based Life—Cycle Inventories , 2000 .

[2]  Rui Chen,et al.  Life Cycle Cost Analysis of the Fuel Cell Bus Based on Chinese Bus Cycle , 2011 .

[3]  Cale Zeune,et al.  Technology assessment for a complex aircraft system using technology scenarios , 2015 .

[4]  Chris Hendrickson,et al.  Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Goods and Services: An Input-Output Approach , 2006 .

[5]  Lino Guzzella,et al.  Vehicle Propulsion Systems , 2013 .

[6]  D. Goehlich,et al.  Electrification of a city bus network—An optimization model for cost-effective placing of charging infrastructure and battery sizing of fast-charging electric bus systems , 2017 .

[7]  Joeri Van Mierlo,et al.  Environmental impacts of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and battery electric vehicles—what can we learn from life cycle assessment? , 2014, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[8]  Jeremy J. Michalek,et al.  Using Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment to Guide Sustainable Design , 2011 .

[9]  Mark Ferguson,et al.  Electric buses: A review of alternative powertrains , 2016 .

[10]  Lino Guzzella,et al.  Vehicle Propulsion Systems: Introduction to Modeling and Optimization , 2005 .

[11]  Luis F. Miranda-Moreno,et al.  Assessing the impact of bus technology on greenhouse gas emissions along a major corridor: A lifecycle analysis , 2013 .

[12]  Joao M. C. Sousa,et al.  Efficiency, cost and life cycle CO2 optimization of fuel cell hybrid and plug-in hybrid urban buses , 2014 .

[13]  Pablo Luis Durango-Cohen,et al.  Trading off costs, environmental impact, and levels of service in the optimal design of transit bus fleets , 2018 .

[14]  Antti Lajunen,et al.  Energy consumption and cost-benefit analysis of hybrid and electric city buses , 2014 .

[15]  Azah Mohamed,et al.  Hybrid electric vehicles and their challenges: A review , 2014 .

[16]  F. Knight.  The economic nature of the firm: From Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit , 2009 .

[17]  Jonas Holmborn.  Alternative fuels for internal combustion engines , 2015 .

[18]  農林水産奨励会農林水産政策情報センター,et al.  The green book : appraisal and evaluation in central government , 2003 .

[19]  Pablo Luis Durango-Cohen,et al.  Environmental life-cycle assessment of transit buses with alternative fuel technology , 2012 .

[20]  Christoph J. Meinrenken,et al.  Fleet view of electrified transportation reveals smaller potential to reduce GHG emissions , 2015 .

[21]  Randall Guensler,et al.  Assessment of alternative fuel and powertrain transit bus options using real-world operations data: Life-cycle fuel and emissions modeling , 2015 .

[22]  Wenwei Ke,et al.  Real-world performance of battery electric buses and their life-cycle benefits with respect to energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions , 2016 .

[23]  Troy R. Hawkins,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment of Diesel and Electric Public Transportation Buses , 2013 .

[24]  Vigna Kumaran Ramachandaramurthy,et al.  A review on the state-of-the-art technologies of electric vehicle, its impacts and prospects , 2015 .

[25]  Eckard Helmers,et al.  A new hybrid method for reducing the gap between WTW and LCA in the carbon footprint assessment of electric vehicles , 2015, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[26]  Aoife Foley,et al.  Impacts of Electric Vehicle charging under electricity market operations , 2013 .

[27]  B. Simon,et al.  Analysis of Global and Local Environmental Impacts of Bus Transport by LCA Methodologies , 2010 .

[28]  Joao M. C. Sousa,et al.  Reducing the carbon footprint of urban bus fleets using multi-objective optimization , 2015 .

[29]  Jamie Ally.  Life cycle assessment and life cycle costing of hydrogen fuel cell, natural gas, and diesel bus transportation systems in Western Australia , 2015 .

[30]  Julio Lumbreras Martin,et al.  Impact of Spanish electricity mix, over the period 2008–2030, on the Life Cycle energy consumption and GHG emissions of Electric, Hybrid Diesel-Electric, Fuel Cell Hybrid and Diesel Bus of the Madrid Transportation System , 2013 .

[31]  Trevor Pryor,et al.  Life-cycle assessment of diesel, natural gas and hydrogen fuel cell bus transportation systems , 2007 .

[32]  Antti Lajunen,et al.  Lifecycle costs and charging requirements of electric buses with different charging methods , 2018 .

[33]  Omer Tatari,et al.  Optimization of transit bus fleet's life cycle assessment impacts with alternative fuel options , 2015 .

[34]  Thomas Bruckner,et al.  Annex III - Technology-specific cost and performance parameters , 2013 .

[35]  Timothy E. Lipman,et al.  Lifecycle cost assessment and carbon dioxide emissions of diesel, natural gas, hybrid electric, fuel cell hybrid and electric transit buses , 2016 .

[36]  Julio Lumbreras Martin,et al.  Comparison of Life Cycle energy consumption and GHG emissions of natural gas, biodiesel and diesel buses of the Madrid transportation system , 2012 .

[37]  Chee Wei Tan,et al.  A review of energy sources and energy management system in electric vehicles , 2013 .

[38]  Chee Wei Tan,et al.  Fuel cell hybrid electric vehicles: A review on power conditioning units and topologies , 2017 .

[39]  Ning Wang,et al.  Hybrid Electric and Battery Electric City Buses Benefit Analysis Based on Lifecycle Cost and Emission , 2011 .

[40]  Wenwei Ke,et al.  Can propulsion and fuel diversity for the bus fleet achieve the win–win strategy of energy conservation and environmental protection? , 2015 .

[41]  Lester B. Lave,et al.  Evaluating automobile fuel/propulsion system technologies , 2003 .

[42]  Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.  Assessing the Impact of Technology on Aircraft Systems Using Technology Impact Forecasting , 2013 .

[43]  Li Liu,et al.  Life Cycle Analysis on Energy Efficiency and CO2 Emissions of China’s New Energy City Bus , 2012 .

[44]  Samik Raychaudhuri,et al.  Introduction to Monte Carlo simulation , 2008, 2008 Winter Simulation Conference.

[45]  B. Nykvist,et al.  Rapidly falling costs of battery packs for electric vehicles , 2015 .

[46]  Hewu Wang,et al.  Energy consumption and GHG emissions of GTL fuel by LCA: Results from eight demonstration transit buses in Beijing , 2010 .

[47]  Trevor Pryor,et al.  Life cycle costing of diesel, natural gas, hybrid and hydrogen fuel cell bus systems: An Australian case study , 2016 .

[48]  Omer Tatari,et al.  A hybrid life cycle assessment of public transportation buses with alternative fuel options , 2015, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[49]  O. Edenhofer,et al.  Climate change 2014 : mitigation of climate change , 2014 .

[50]  David L. McCleese,et al.  Using monte carlo simulation in life cycle assessment for electric and internal combustion vehicles , 2002 .

[51]  Hass Heinz,et al.  WELL-TO-WHEELS Report version 4.a : JEC WELL-TO-WHEELS ANALYSIS , 2014 .

[52]  Vincent Mahieu,et al.  Well-to-wheels analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in the european context , 2004 .

[53]  Douglas W. Hubbard,et al.  How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of "Intangibles" in Business , 2007 .

[54]  Xunmin Ou,et al.  Alternative fuel buses currently in use in China: Life-cycle fossil energy use, GHG emissions and policy recommendations , 2010 .

[55]  Andreas Poullikkas,et al.  Sustainable options for electric vehicle technologies , 2015 .

[56]  Fábio Coelho Barbosa,et al.  Pure Electric Bus Traction Technology Overview - A Path Towards Enhanced Environmental Performance and Efficiency for Transit Bus Fleets , 2014 .

[57]  Zhenhong Lin,et al.  Battery capacity and recharging needs for electric buses in city transit service , 2017 .

[58]  Alissa Kendall,et al.  Effects of battery chemistry and performance on the life cycle greenhouse gas intensity of electric mobility , 2016 .