Life cycle air quality impacts of conventional and alternative light-duty transportation in the United States

Significance Our assessment of the life cycle air quality impacts on human health of 10 alternatives to conventional gasoline vehicles finds that electric vehicles (EVs) powered by electricity from natural gas or wind, water, or solar power are best for improving air quality, whereas vehicles powered by corn ethanol and EVs powered by coal are the worst. This work advances the current debate over the environmental impacts of conventional versus alternative transportation options by combining detailed spatially and temporally explicit emissions inventories with state-of-the-science air quality impact analysis using advanced chemical transport modeling. Our results reinforce previous findings that air quality-related health damages from transportation are generally comparable to or larger than climate change-related damages. Commonly considered strategies for reducing the environmental impact of light-duty transportation include using alternative fuels and improving vehicle fuel economy. We evaluate the air quality-related human health impacts of 10 such options, including the use of liquid biofuels, diesel, and compressed natural gas (CNG) in internal combustion engines; the use of electricity from a range of conventional and renewable sources to power electric vehicles (EVs); and the use of hybrid EV technology. Our approach combines spatially, temporally, and chemically detailed life cycle emission inventories; comprehensive, fine-scale state-of-the-science chemical transport modeling; and exposure, concentration–response, and economic health impact modeling for ozone (O3) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). We find that powering vehicles with corn ethanol or with coal-based or “grid average” electricity increases monetized environmental health impacts by 80% or more relative to using conventional gasoline. Conversely, EVs powered by low-emitting electricity from natural gas, wind, water, or solar power reduce environmental health impacts by 50% or more. Consideration of potential climate change impacts alongside the human health outcomes described here further reinforces the environmental preferability of EVs powered by low-emitting electricity relative to gasoline vehicles.

[1]  S Pacala,et al.  Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies , 2004, Science.

[2]  A. Robinson,et al.  A volatility basis set model for summertime secondary organic aerosols over the eastern United States in 2006 , 2012 .

[3]  G. Whitten,et al.  UPDATES TO THE CARBON BOND MECHANISM FOR VERSION 6 (CB6) , 2010 .

[4]  Environmental Systems.  Renewable Fuel Standard: Potential Economic and Environmental Effects of U.S. Biofuel Policy , 2012 .

[5]  Heather L MacLean,et al.  Life cycle assessment of automobile/fuel options. , 2003, Environmental science & technology.

[6]  M. Memmesheimer,et al.  Modal aerosol dynamics model for Europe: development and first applications , 1998 .

[7]  David T. Allen,et al.  Comparisons of air quality impacts of fleet electrification and increased use of biofuels , 2011 .

[8]  Julian D Marshall,et al.  A spatially and temporally explicit life cycle inventory of air pollutants from gasoline and ethanol in the United States. , 2012, Environmental science & technology.

[9]  Hosam K. Fathy,et al.  On the aggregate grid load imposed by battery health-conscious charging of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles , 2011 .

[10]  M. Jacobson.  Effects of ethanol (E85) versus gasoline vehicles on cancer and mortality in the United States. , 2007, Environmental science & technology.

[11]  Pooya Soltantabar.  Annual Energy Outlook , 2015 .

[12]  Kazuhiko Ito,et al.  Long-term ozone exposure and mortality. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  Paul Denholm,et al.  Effects of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on ozone concentrations in Colorado. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[14]  Georg A. Grell,et al.  Fully coupled “online” chemistry within the WRF model , 2005 .

[15]  C. Field,et al.  Greater Transportation Energy and GHG Offsets from Bioelectricity Than Ethanol , 2009, Science.

[16]  Michael E. Webber,et al.  Air quality impacts of using overnight electricity generation to charge plug-in hybrid electric vehicles for daytime use , 2009 .

[17]  Catherine A Yanca,et al.  Air quality impacts of increased use of ethanol under the United States’ Energy Independence and Security Act , 2011 .

[18]  Carey W. King,et al.  Water intensity of transportation. , 2008, Environmental science & technology.

[19]  Doug Allen,et al.  Driving on Biomass , 2009, Science.

[20]  Jeremy J. Michalek,et al.  Valuation of plug-in vehicle life-cycle air emissions and oil displacement benefits , 2011, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[21]  Chandra Venkataraman,et al.  Global atmospheric impacts of residential fuels , 2004 .

[22]  Martijn Gough.  Climate change , 2009, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[23]  W Michael Griffin,et al.  Impact of biofuel crop production on the formation of hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[24]  Unfccc.  Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , 1997 .

[25]  Christopher M Tessum,et al.  Twelve-month, 12 km resolution North American WRF-Chem v3.4 air quality simulation: Performance evaluation , 2014 .

[26]  M. Delucchi.  ENVIRONMENTAL EXTERNALITIES OF MOTOR-VEHICLE USE IN THE US. IN: THE AUTOMOBILE , 2000 .

[27]  Joeri Van Mierlo,et al.  Comparative LCA of electric, hybrid, LPG and gasoline cars in Belgian context , 2009 .

[28]  N. Parker,et al.  Impact of air pollution control costs on the cost and spatial arrangement of cellulosic biofuel production in the U.S. , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[29]  R. Tol.  The Economic Effects of Climate Change , 2009 .

[30]  F. Kirchner,et al.  A new mechanism for regional atmospheric chemistry modeling , 1997 .

[31]  Carey W. King,et al.  Air quality impacts of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles in Texas: evaluating three battery charging scenarios , 2011 .

[32]  W. R. Morrow,et al.  The Technology Path to Deep Greenhouse Gas Emissions Cuts by 2050: The Pivotal Role of Electricity , 2012, Science.

[33]  David W. Hafemeister,et al.  Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use , 2011 .

[34]  P. J. Balducci,et al.  Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle Market Penetration Scenarios , 2008 .

[35]  Stephen Polasky,et al.  Climate change and health costs of air emissions from biofuels and gasoline , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[36]  R. Burnett,et al.  Extended follow-up and spatial analysis of the American Cancer Society study linking particulate air pollution and mortality. , 2009, Research report.

[37]  M. Auffhammer.  Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use , 2011, Environmental Health Perspectives.

[38]  Board on Energy,et al.  Transitions to Alternative Vehicles and Fuels , 2013 .

[39]  E. Kort,et al.  Methane Leaks from North American Natural Gas Systems , 2014, Science.