The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

, Volume 20, Issue 9, pp 1213–1231 | Cite as

A hybrid life cycle assessment of public transportation buses with alternative fuel options

  • Tolga Ercan
  • Omer Tatari



Alternative fuel options are gaining popularity in the vehicle market. Adopting alternative fuel options for public transportation compared to passenger vehicles contributes exponentially to reductions in transportation-related environmental impacts. Therefore, this study aims to present total air pollutant emissions and water withdrawal impacts through the lifetime of a transit bus with different fuel options.


In consideration of market share and future development trends, diesel, biodiesel, compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), hybrid (diesel-electric), and battery electric (BE) transit buses are analyzed with an input-output (IO)-based hybrid life cycle assessment (LCA) model. In order to accommodate the sensitivity of total impacts to fuel economy, three commonly used driving cycles are considered: Manhattan, Central Business District (CBD), and Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA). Fuel economy for each of these driving cycles varies over the year with other impacts, so a normal distribution of fuel economy is developed with a Monte Carlo simulation model for each driving cycle and corresponding fuel type.

Results and discussion

Impacts from a solar panel (photovoltaic, PV) charging scenario and different grid mix scenarios are evaluated and compared to the nation’s average grid mix impacts from energy generation to accommodate the lifetime electricity needs for the BE transit bus. From these results, it was found that the BE transit bus causes significantly low CO2 emissions than diesel and other alternative fuel options, while some of the driving cycles of the hybrid-powered transit bus cause comparable emissions to BE transit bus. On the other hand, lifetime water withdrawal impacts of the diesel and hybrid options are more feasible compared to other options, since electricity generation and natural gas manufacturing are both heavily dependent on water withdrawal. In addition, the North American Electricity Reliability Corporation’s (NERC) regional electricity grid mix impacts on CO2 emissions and water withdrawal are presented for the BE transit bus.


As an addition of current literature, LCA of alternative fuel options was performed in this paper for transit buses with the consideration of a wide variety of environmental indicators. Although the results indicate that BE and hybrid-powered buses have less environmental emissions, the US’s dependency on fossil fuel for electricity generation continues to yield significant lifetime impacts on BE transit bus operation. With respect to water withdrawal impacts, we believe that the adoption of BE transit buses will be faster and more environmentally feasible for some NREC regions than for others.


Alternative fuel-powered transit buses Environmental life cycle assessment Electricity grid mix Monte Carlo simulation Water withdrawal 



This material is based upon work supported in part by the Electric Vehicle Transportation Center funded by the US Department of Transportation University Transportation Centers Program.

Compliance with ethical standards

Dr. Omer Tatari and Tolga Ercan declare that they have no conflict of interest. This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects.


  1. Ally J, Pryor T (2007) Life-cycle assessment of diesel, natural gas and hydrogen fuel cell bus transportation systems. J Power Sources 170(2):401–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argonne National Laboratory (2013) GREET1 Model 2013. Chicago: U.S. Department of Energy Argonne National Laboratory. Retrieved from
  3. Assessment and Standards Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2012) Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES). Retrieved from
  4. BAE Systems (2015) “HybriDrive Propulsion Systems” on the Internet at [Accessed on August 2014]
  5. Bailey L, Mokhtarian PL, Little A (2008) The broader connection between public transportation, energy conservation and greenhouse gas reduction. ICF International, TCRP Project J-11/Task 3 Transit Cooperative Research Program, Transportation Research BoardGoogle Scholar
  6. Barnitt R (2006) Case study: ebus hybrid electric buses and trolleys. Technical report. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, COGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnitt R (2008) BAE/Orion hybrid electric buses at New York City transit. A generational comparison. Technical report. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, COGoogle Scholar
  8. Beer T, Grant T, Williams D, Watson H (2002) Fuel-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from alternative fuels in Australian heavy vehicles. Atmos Environ 36(4):753–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Callaghan L, Lynch S (2005) Analysis of electric drive technologies for transit applications: battery-electric, hybrid-electric, and fuel cells. Final report. Federal Transit Administration, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. Carnegie Mellon University Green Design Institute (2014) Economic Input-Output Life Cycle Assessment (EIO-LCA) US 2002 (428 sectors) Producer model [Internet], Available from: [Accessed 15 July, 2014]
  11. Chester MV, Horvath A (2009) Environmental assessment of passenger transportation should include infrastructure and supply chains. Environ Res Lett 4(2):024008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chester MV, Horvath A, Madanat S (2010) Comparison of life-cycle energy and emissions footprints of passenger transportation in metropolitan regions. Atmos Environ 44(8):1071–1079CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark NN, Zhen F, Wayne WS, Lyons DW (2007) Transit bus life cycle cost and year 2007 emissions estimation. Final report. Federal Transit Administration, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark NN, Zhen F, Wayne WS, Schiavone JJ, Chambers C, Golub AD, Chandler KL (2009) Assessment of hybrid-electric transit bus technology. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooney G, Hawkins TR, Marriott J (2013) Life cycle assessment of diesel and electric public transportation buses. J Ind Ecol 17(5):689–699Google Scholar
  16. De Filippo G, Marano V, Sioshansi R (2014) Simulation of an electric transportation system at the Ohio State. Appl Energy 113:1686–1691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Denholm P, Kuss M, Margolis RM (2013) Co-benefits of large scale plug-in hybrid electric vehicle and solar PV deployment. J Power Sources 236:350–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Engholm A, Johansson G, Persson AA (2013) Life cycle assessment of Solelia Greentech’s photovoltaic based charging station for electric vehicles. Technical report. Uppsala Universitet, Uppsala, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  19. Finkel AM (1995) Toward less misleading comparisons of uncertain risks: the example of aflatoxin and alar. Environ Health Perspect 103(4):376–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Finnveden G, Hauschild MZ, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag 91(1):1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frey HC, Rouphail NM, Zhai H, Farias TL, Gonçalves GA (2007) Comparing real-world fuel consumption for diesel- and hydrogen-fueled transit buses and implication for emissions. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ 12(4):281–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fthenakis VM, Kim HC (2012) Life cycle assessment of high-concentration photovoltaic systems. Prog Photovolt Res Appl 21:379–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. García Sánchez JA, López Martínez JM, Lumbreras Martín J, Flores Holgado MN, Aguilar Morales H (2013) 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. Energy Convers Manag 74:332–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hackleman EC (1977) Is an electric vehicle in your future ? Environ Sci Technol 11(9):858–862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harto C, Meyers R, Williams E (2010) Life cycle water use of low-carbon transport fuels. Energ Policy 38(9):4933–4944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hendrickson C, Horvath A, Joshi S, Lave L (1998) Economic input-output models for environmental life-cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 32(7):184A–191ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hendrickson CT, Lave LB, Matthews HS (2006) Environmental life cycle assessment of goods and services: an input-output approach. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  28. Hess D (2007) What is a clean bus? Object conflicts in the greening of urban transit. Sustain: Sci Pract Policy 3(1):45–58Google Scholar
  29. Hill J, Nelson E, Tilman D, Polasky S, Tiffany D (2006) Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103(30):11206–11210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. International Standards Organization (2006) ISO 14040-Environmental management-life cycle assessment-principles and framework. Accessed Aug 2014
  31. Jiang Q, Li T, Liu Z, Zhang H, Ren K (2014) Life cycle assessment of an engine with input-output based hybrid analysis method. J Clean Prod 78:131–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnson C (2010) Business case for compressed natural gas in municipal fleets. Technical report. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  33. Joshi S (2000) Product environmental life-cycle assessment using input-output techniques. J Ind Ecol 3(2-3):95–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kawashima T (2014) Electric bus system with rapid charging at every bus stop using renewable energy. Mech Eng J 2(1):13-00085-13-00085Google Scholar
  35. Kay M, Clark M, Duffy C, Laube M, Lian FS (2011) Bus life cycle cost model for federal land management agencies: user’s guide. Final report. U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative Technology Administration John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Kennedy C, Steinberger J, Gasson B, Hansen Y, Hillman T, Havránek M, Pataki D, Phdungsilp A, Ramaswami A, Villalba Mendez G (2009) Greenhouse gas emissions from global cities. Environ Sci Technol 43(19):7297–7302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. King CW, Webber ME (2008a) Water intensity of transportation. Environ Sci Technol Policy Anal 42(21):7866–7872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. King CW, Webber ME (2008b) The water intensity of the plugged-in automotive economy. Environ Sci Technol 42(12):4305–4311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kucukvar M, Noori M, Egilmez G, Tatari O (2014) Stochastic decision modeling for sustainable pavement designs. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(6):1185–1199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lajunen A (2014) Energy consumption and cost-benefit analysis of hybrid and electric city buses. Transp Res Part C: Emerg Technol 38:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Larrousse PJ, Aoyagi G, Bailly JP, Barker JB, Barnes LEE, Barnes RL, Blair GL, Freeland RL, Gambaccini LJ, Hunter-zaworski K, Lerner-lam Eva, Monroe Don S (2000) TCRP report 59 hybrid-electric transit buses: status, issues, and benefits. Technical report. Transit Cooperative Research Program by Federal Transit Administration, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  42. Laver R, Schneck D, Skorupski D, Brady S, Cham L, Booz Allen Hamilton (2007) Useful life of transit buses and vans. Final report. Federal Transit Administration, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  43. M.J. Bradley & Associates LLC (2013) Comparison of modern CNG, diesel and diesel hybrid-electric transit buses : efficiency & environmental performanceGoogle Scholar
  44. Majeau-Bettez G, Hawkins TR, Strømman AH (2011) Life cycle environmental assessment of lithium-ion and nickel metal hydride batteries for plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles. Environ Sci Technol 45(10):4548–4554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Marriott J, Matthews HS (2005) Environmental effects of interstate power trading on electricity consumption mixes. Environ Sci Technol 39(22):8584–8590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. McCleese DL, LaPuma PT (2002) Using Monte Carlo simulation in life cycle assessment for electric and internal combustion vehicles. Int J Life Cycle Assess 7(4):230–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McMahon JE, Price SK (2011) Water and energy interactions. Annu Rev Environ Resour 36(1):163–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Natural Gas Vehicles for America (2014) Accessed on August 2014
  49. Neff J, Dickens M (2013) 2013 Public transportation fact book. Annual Report (64th Edition). American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC, pp 1–66Google Scholar
  50. New Flyer Industries Inc (2014) (Sep, 2013). Accessed on July 2014
  51. Norman J, Maclean HL, Kennedy CA (2006) Comparing high and low residential density: life-cycle analysis of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. J Urban Plann Dev 132(1):10–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Onat NC, Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2014a) Towards life cycle sustainability assessment of alternative passenger vehicles. Sustainability 6(12):9305–9342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Onat NC, Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2014b) Integrating triple bottom line input–output analysis into life cycle sustainability assessment framework: the case for US buildings. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(8):1488–1505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Onat C, Kucukvar M, Tatari O (2015) Conventional, hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicles? state-based comparative carbon and energy footprint analysis in the United States. Appl Energy 150:36–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ou X, Zhang X, Chang S (2010a) Alternative fuel buses currently in use in China: life-cycle fossil energy use, GHG emissions and policy recommendations. Energ Policy 38(1):406–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ou X, Zhang X, Chang S (2010b) Scenario analysis on alternative fuel/vehicle for China’s future road transport: life-cycle energy demand and GHG emissions. Energ Policy 38(8):3943–3956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Peschiera B, Williamson SS (2013) Review and comparison of inductive charging power electronic converter topologies for electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. In Transportation Electrification Conference and Expo (ITEC), 2013 IEEE. IEEE, Detroit, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  58. Peters G (2007) Efficient algorithms for life cycle assessment, input-output analysis, and Monte-Carlo analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12(6):373–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Richardson S (2013) Hybrid-diesel vs. CNG: an updated comparison of transit fleet alternatives. Technical report. Public Solutions Group LtdGoogle Scholar
  60. Rodríguez-Alloza AM, Malik A, Lenzen M, Gallego J (2014) Hybrid input–output life cycle assessment of warm mix asphalt mixtures. J Clean Prod 90:171–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Samaras C (2008) A life-cycle approach to technology, infrastructure, and climate policy decision making: transitioning to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and low-carbon electricity. Doctoral Dissertation, retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and ThesesGoogle Scholar
  62. Samaras C, Meisterling K (2008) Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from plug-in hybrid vehicles: implications for policy. Environ Sci Technol 42(9):3170–3176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Scown CD, Horvath A, McKone TE (2011) Water footprint of U.S. transportation fuels. Environ Sci Technol 45(7):2541–2553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Shiau CSN, Samaras C, Hauffe R, Michalek JJ (2009) Impact of battery weight and charging patterns on the economic and environmental benefits of plug-in hybrid vehicles. Energ Policy 37(7):2653–2663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Silva CM, Gonçalves GA, Farias TL, Mendes-Lopes JMC (2006) A tank-to-wheel analysis tool for energy and emissions studies in road vehicles. Sci Total Environ 367(1):441–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Suh S, Lenzen M, Treloar GJ, Hondo H, Horvath A, Huppes G, Jolliet O, Klann U, Krewitt W, Moriguchi Y, Munksgaard J, Norris G (2004) System boundary selection in life-cycle inventories using hybrid approaches. Environ Sci Technol 38(3):657–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tesla Motors Inc. (2014) Tesla Motors Inc. 2020 Gigafactory. Accessed June 2014
  68. Transportation Research Board National Research Council (1993) Safe operating procedures for alternative fuel buses a synthesis of transit practice. Technical report. Transit Cooperative Research Program, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  69. Traut E, Hendrickson C, Klampfl E, Liu Y, Michalek JJ (2011) Optimal design and allocation of electrified vehicles and dedicated charging infrastructure for minimum greenhouse gas emissions. In 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  70. Turrio-Baldassarri L, Battistelli CL, Conti L, Crebelli R, De Berardis B, Iamiceli AL, Gambino M, Iannaccone S (2006) Evaluation of emission toxicity of urban bus engines: compressed natural gas and comparison with liquid fuels. Sci Total Environ 355(1-3):64–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015a) Consumer price index database on the internet. At [Retrieved on September 2014]
  72. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015b) Producer price index database on the internet. At [Retrieved on September 2014]
  73. U.S. Department of Energy (2013) Clean cities alternative fuel price report. U.S. Department of Energy, @@Washington DC, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  74. U.S. Energy Information Administration (2013) Annual energy outlook 2013 with projection to 2040. Final report. U.S. Energy Information Administration Office of Integrated and International Energy Analysis, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  75. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2014) Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and sinks: 1990–2012. Final report. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  76. Wiedmann TO, Suh S, Feng K, Lenzen M, Acquaye A, Scott K, Barrett JR (2011) Application of hybrid life cycle approaches to emerging energy technologies—the case of wind power in the UK. Environ Sci Technol 45(13):5900–5907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wu M, Peng MJ (2011) Developing a tool to estimate water use in electric power generation in the United States. Argonne National Laboratory,
  78. Wu HH, Gilchrist A, Sealy K, Israelsen P, Muhs J (2011) A review on inductive charging for electric vehicles. 2011 I.E. Int Electr Mach Drivers Conf (IEMDC), IEEE, pp 143–147Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil, Environmental, and Construction EngineeringUniversity of Central FloridaOrlandoUSA

Personalised recommendations