Life cycle analysis for hybrid and electric vehicles

  • 432 views
Uploaded on

An overview of potential future lifecycle impacts of low carbon vehicles. Shifting to hybrid and electric vehicles will mean that an increasing share of lifecycle GHG emissions come from the …

An overview of potential future lifecycle impacts of low carbon vehicles. Shifting to hybrid and electric vehicles will mean that an increasing share of lifecycle GHG emissions come from the production of the vehicle and electricity. Presentation given at the annual LowCVP conference by Nik Hill, knowledge leader for transport technology at Ricardo-AEA

More in: Business , Technology
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
432
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
36
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. © Ricardo-AEA Ltd www.ricardo-aea.com Nikolas Hill Knowledge Leader – Transport Technology and Fuels Ricardo-AEA Life-Cycle Assessment for Hybrid and Electric Vehicles “Beyond the Tailpipe” LowCVP Annual Conference 2013 11th July 2013
  • 2. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain2 11th July 2013  Life-Cycle Assessment in the automotive sector and significance for hybrid and electric vehicles  Project for CCC on LCE (life cycle emissions) for future low carbon technologies: ‒ Scope and objectives ‒ Lifecycle stages and range of values in the literature ‒ Baseline assumptions for future LCE calculation tool ‒ Key results from the analysis ‒ Summary and conclusions  Overall potential implications for policy and businesses Overview
  • 3. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain3 11th July 2013 Current tailpipe CO2 metric insufficient to compare impacts of hybrid and electric vehicles due to upstream fuel/vehicle production GHG  Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is key for future vehicle technology and fuel comparisons Well-to-wheel (WTW) is the specific LCA used for transport fuel/vehicle systems (but limited to the fuel itself) – used for biofuels in particular LCA Methodologies Part 1: Use of LCA in the automotive sector Life Cycle Assessment Framework Goal and Scope Definition Inventory Analysis Impact Assessment Interpretation LCA ISO (14040/14044) standards only provide general guidelines  different models, methodologies and assumptions are often used Many OEMs conduct ISO compliant/high quality LCA studies of their vehicles as part of their Environmental Management strategies Several OEMs publish the results from their LCA, but it is not clear if different OEMs use the same set of assumptions or input data sets
  • 4. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain4 11th July 2013 Currently, there are no automotive targets specifically aimed at reducing CO2 from production of the whole vehicle WTT emissions are also not factored into vehicle CO2 regulations Issues for both hybrid and electric vehicles: Availability of reliable real-world performance data (i.e. MJ/km) Wide range of literature reported values for battery GHG intensity Uncertainty on battery lifetime performance/potential replacement Issues for plug-in EVs only (PHEVs, REEVs and BEVs): Very large variation in regional electricity GHG intensity and in estimates for future decarbonisation  affects all lifecycle stages Average or marginal electricity? Recharge at night or in daytime? Most studies also DON’T typically account for: a) Upstream emissions of fuels used in electricity generation (+16% for UK) b) Projected changes in electricity GHG intensity over the vehicle lifetime Accounting for recharging losses (often excluded) LCA Methodologies Part 2: Key considerations for hybrid and electric vehicles
  • 5. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain5 11th July 2013 Previous CCC advice include ‘low-carbon’ technologies which reduce emissions at point-of-use relative to counterfactual Ricardo-AEA undertook an analysis considering lifecycle emissions (LCEs) for various technologies in several sectors, going beyond the point-of-use to provide estimates from the current situation out to 2050 NOT a detailed LCA: objective was to provide estimates (from existing studies) of current LCEs for UK circumstances and project to 2050 Current LCEs are broken down into relevant categories to allow: a) Investigation of the influence of key geographical parameters on overall emissions b) Separation of these emissions into UK and non-UK emissions c) Exploration of sensitivities for key components and scenarios on how these emissions might be reduced Work involved a literature review and development of spread sheet calculation tools for the different technology areas Future impacts of biofuel use excluded from analysis (set at 2012 mix) Current and Future Lifecycle Emissions of Key ‘Low Carbon’ Technologies and Alternatives, a project for CCC
  • 6. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain6 11th July 2013 Vehicle Manufacture Vehicle Transport Vehicle Operation Refuelling Infrastructure End of Life Disposal • Five key stages were identified as accounting for the most significant GHG emission components of the road vehicle lifecycle (that could also reasonably be quantified) The road vehicle lifecycle Materials (Fe, Al, etc) Components Manufacturing energy Road Rail Ship Energy Consumption Maintenance Refrigerant leakage Conventional fuels Electric recharging Hydrogen refuelling Recycling Refrigerant Fuel use
  • 7. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain7 11th July 2013  Principal differences between values in the studies were largely due to a combination of the following factors / assumptions for the analysis: (i) lifetime km (= vehicle lifetime x annual km), (ii) vehicle size/specification, (iii) lifecycle stages covered, (iv) grid electricity GHG intensity, (v) batteries used (size in kg or kWh, assumptions on GHG intensity of manufacture) Range of overall LCEs in the literature Road transport technologies Wide range of studies identified and preliminarily screened for suitability Studies selected to be taken forward for further analysis included some or all of the following elements: Compared as many technologies as possible Provided sufficient detail/ breakdown for the analysis Provided additional information/detail on certain aspects (e.g. battery tech, refuelling infrastructure, etc) Other studies also used to provide/supplement key data 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 ICE HEV PHEV REEV BEV Car gCO2e/Km Patterson et al. 2011 Samaras & Meisterling 2008 Hawkins et al. 2012 Ma et al. 2012 Lucas et al. 2012 Helms et al, 2010 Zamel & Li 2006 Burnham et al. 2006 [This study]
  • 8. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain8 11th July 2013  Fuel factors are average over the operational lifetime for a vehicle in a given year  Future vehicle performance/characteristics from CCC modelling and recent publications Base case scenario assumptions: Energy and materials intensity trajectories, vehicle characteristics 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 kgCO2/kg Steel (Base) Steel-Base-UK Steel-Base-OECD Europe Steel-Base-OECD Other Steel-Base-Car Average Steel-Base-HGV Average Steel-Base-non OECD 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 kgCO2/kg Aluminium (Base) Aluminium-Base-UK Aluminium-Base- OECD Europe Aluminium-Base- OECD Other Aluminium-Base-Car Average Aluminium-Base- HGV Average Aluminium-Base-non OECD 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 kgCO2/kWh Battery (Base) Battery-Base-UK Battery-Base-OECD Europe Battery-Base-OECD Other Battery-Base-Car Average Battery-Base-HGV Average Battery-Base-non OECD 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 gCO2/kWh(lifetimeaverage) Fuels (Base) Petrol Base UK Diesel Base UK Electricity Base UK Hydrogen Base UK Natural gas Base UK
  • 9. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain9 11th July 2013 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2010 ICE Car 2010 BEV Car gCO2e/km Emissions Breakdown (excluding operational fuel) Dismantalling refrigerant leakage Dismantalling fuel use Refuelling infrastructure Operation Refrigerant Leakage Operation Maintenance Transport Total Manufacture fuel use Manufacture Refrigerant Leakage Components Battery Materials Other Materials CFRP Materials Textile Materials Glass Materials Rubber Materials Plastics Materials Magnesium Materials Aluminium Materials Iron & Steel 87% 13% Petrol ICE Car Fuel Other 2010 52%48% BEV Car Fuel Other 2010 Breakdown of LCEs from the developed model: Detailed split for 2010 Petrol ICE and BEV cars The uncertainty in and significance of GHG emissions from battery production in the literature prompted more detailed investigation of the component breakdown in order to better understand potential future trajectory / key sensitivities Total g/km Total g/km * Battery production GHG intensity based on intermediate value in literature from Ricardo (2012) *
  • 10. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain10 11th July 2013 Breakdown of LCEs from the developed model: Future trajectory of detailed split for BEV cars (baseline) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 gCO2e/km Emissions Breakdown (excluding operational fuel) - BEV Car Dismantalling refrigerant leakage Dismantalling fuel use Refuelling infrastructure Operation Refrigerant Leakage Operation Maintenance Transport Total Manufacture fuel use Manufacture Refrigerant Leakage Components Battery Materials Other Materials CFRP Materials Textile Materials Glass Materials Rubber Materials Plastics Materials Magnesium Materials Aluminium Materials Iron & Steel  Significance of batteries in overall LCE footprint of BEVs is anticipated to decrease significantly in the long term under the base case:  Battery GHG reduction due to: i. Reduced battery weight (/materials); ii. Decarbonised manufacturing energy iii.Improved recycling iv.Reduced GHG intensity of materials used
  • 11. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain11 11th July 2013  2010 petrol car = 159.5 gCO2/km (test cycle)  ICE > HEV > PHEV > REEV > BEV  Manufacturing emissions share increases in future, particularly for BEVs  Reduced savings from EVs (relative to ICE) - but total LCEs still much lower than for ICE  Recharging infrastructure a small but still significant component (but more uncertainty)  5 gCO2e/km due to refrigerants in 2010 Base case scenario for cars: Breakdown by lifecycle stage 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 gCO2e/km Petrol ICE Car, Scenario 1: Base case Disposal Infrastructure Operation Transport Manufacture 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 gCO2e/km BEV Car, Scenario 1: Base case Disposal Infrastructure Operation Transport Manufacture 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 gCO2e/km Petrol PHEV Car, Scenario 1: Base case Disposal Infrastructure Operation Transport Manufacture
  • 12. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain12 11th July 2013  Proportion of emissions outside UK doesn’t change much over time for ICE (2010: ~8%) and PHEV (2010: ~16%) technologies  >40% of BEV emissions are outside of the UK in 2010, potentially rising to 66% by 2050 (due to vehicle and battery production)  In the Worst Case scenario (with very high emissions due mainly to the batteries) over 86% of BEV LCE could occur outside of the UK by 2050 (also due to reduction in operational LCE) Base case scenario for cars: Emissions in the UK vs overseas 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 gCO2e/km Petrol ICE Car, Scenario 1: Base case NonUK Emissions UK Emissions 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 gCO2e/km Petrol PHEV Car, Scenario 1: Base case NonUK Emissions UK Emissions 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 gCO2e/km BEV Car, Scenario 1: Base case NonUK Emissions UK Emissions
  • 13. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain13 11th July 2013 78% 22% Petrol PHEV Car Fuel Other 2010 84% 16% Petrol PHEV Car Fuel Other 2050 52%48% BEV Car Fuel Other 2010 7% 93% BEV Car Fuel Other 2050 87% 13% Petrol ICE Car Fuel Other 2010 91% 9% Petrol ICE Car Fuel Other 2050 Base case scenario for cars: Split of LCE for different powertrains for 2010 and 2050 Total 265 g/km Total 127 g/km Total 78 g/km Total 136 g/kmTotal 185 g/km Total 16 g/km
  • 14. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain14 11th July 2013  Battery developments are critical to achieve the maximum savings potential (2050:-90%)  Worst case BEVs show only 26% reduction on base ICE in 2050 (at current biofuel levels). BUT battery replacement unlikely under current lifetime km assumptions versus current manufacturer warranties  BEVs show 55% improvement over Petrol ICE in 2050 for more realistic alternate worst case + high lifetime km scenario (16,000 mi/yr = 57 g/km LCEs for BEVs) Sensitivity analysis for cars: Best Case and Worst Case 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 gCO2e/km Year Sensitivity Range Petrol ICE Car (best) Petrol PHEV Car (best) BEV Car (best) Petrol ICE Car (worst) Petrol PHEV Car (worst) BEV Car (worst) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2010 2050 2010 2050 2010 2050 2010 2050 2010 2050 Petrol ICE Car Petrol HEV Car Petrol PHEV Car Petrol REEV Car BEV Car gCO2e/km Scenario 9: Best Case Disposal Infrastructure Operation Transport Battery replacement Manufacture 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2010 2050 2010 2050 2010 2050 2010 2050 2010 2050 Petrol ICE Car Petrol HEV Car Petrol PHEV Car Petrol REEV Car BEV Car gCO2e/km Scenario 10: Worst Case Disposal Infrastructure Operation Transport Battery replacement Manufacture
  • 15. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain15 11th July 2013  Base scenario for 2010 shows that operational GHG emissions over lifetime of vehicle decrease in the following order ICE > equivalent HEV > PHEV > REEV > BEV  Sensitivity analysis highlighted battery developments are critical to achieve the max. GHG savings for BEVs (and REEVs, PHEVs to a lesser extent): ‒ Improvements in battery cycle/lifetime to minimise the likelihood of replacements ‒ Improvements in battery energy density to reduce material use ‒ Improvements in recycling practices to generate savings through recovered materials ‒ Regional (UK/European) battery production to minimise GHG ‒ Improvements in battery manufacture GHG intensity (i.e. production energy and materials)  BUT in worst case scenario with high lifetime km (+one battery replacement), BEVs still have ~55% reduction on equivalent ICE by 2050 (at current UK average biofuel levels)  Future NonUK emissions share unlikely to increase much for ICE (~9%) and PHEV (~18%), but could increase significantly for BEV (currently 41%, potentially rising to 66% by 2050). (Primarily from significant reduction in operational, other UK elements)  Recharging infrastructure more uncertain; a small but likely still significant component (>3% for BEVs in 2010), but could be potentially more significant in the longer term. Summary and Conclusions: Part 1 – From Ricardo-AEA study for CCC
  • 16. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain16 11th July 2013  Publication of industry LCA studies would help facilitate understanding  Ideally need to track vehicle LCA in a more consistent basis before could even think about whether/how a regulatory approach might be adopted (or not)  Future vehicle CO2 regulations should likely at least factor in WTW emissions  Recommendations from Ricardo (2011) report for LowCVP are still relevant: − Consider a new CO2 metric based on the GHG emissions emitted during vehicle production [tCO2e] (and more tightly define scope/specification for this) − Consider targets aimed at reducing the life cycle CO2 [tCO2e] − Consider the fiscal and regulatory framework in which vehicles are sold, used and disposed  Need to develop a better understanding of battery production emissions and impacts of technology development and ensure future developments do significantly reduce battery production/disposal emissions  Further research is also needed to quantify the relative impacts of different infrastructure types/mixes, and the likely 2050 requirements Summary and Conclusions: Part 2 – Potential implications for policy and businesses
  • 17. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain17 11th July 2013 For further information see full study report available from CCC’s website at: http://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Ricardo- AEA-lifecycle-emissions-low-carbon-technologies-April-2013.pdf Further information
  • 18. © Ricardo-AEA Ltd www.ricardo-aea.com T: E: W: Ricardo-AEA Ltd Gemini Building, Fermi Avenue, Harwell, Didcot, Oxfordshire, OX11 0QR, Nikolas Hill Knowledge Leader – Transport Technology and Fuels +44 (0)1235 753522 nikolas.hill@ricardo-aea.com www.ricardo-aea.com