Advertisement

Conventional, Battery-Powered, and Other Alternative Fuel Vehicles: Sustainability Assessment

  • Lambros K. Mitropoulos
  • Panos D. Prevedouros
Chapter
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)

Abstract

The substantial impacts of transportation on environment, society, and economy strongly urge the incorporation of sustainability into transportation planning. Major developments that enhance transportation sustainability include alternative fuels, electric drive and other novel technologies for vehicle propulsion. This chapter presents a sustainability framework that enables the assessment of transportation vehicle characteristics. Identified indicators are grouped into five sustainability dimensions (environment, technology, energy, economy, and users). The method joins life cycle impacts and a set of quantified indicators to assess the sustainability performance of seven popular light-duty vehicles and two types of transit buses. The hybrid diesel electric bus received the highest sustainability index and the internal combustion engine vehicle the lowest. Fuel cell and hybrid electric vehicles were found to have the highest sustainability index among all passenger vehicles. The sustainability performance of some new technologies currently suffers from limitations in engine and battery performance, comfort and convenience, and availability of charging stations.

References

  1. 1.
    U.S. Department of Energy, The history of the electric car (2014), https://energy.gov/articles/history-electric-car. Accessed on 15 Aug 2017
  2. 2.
    Natural Gas Vehicle Knowledge Base, Current natural gas vehicle statistics (2017), http://www.iangv.org/current-ngv-stats/. Accessed 15 Aug 2017
  3. 3.
    Inside EVs (2017), http://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/. Accessed 15 Sept 2014
  4. 4.
    California Air Resources Board (2017), California’s hydrogen transportation initiatives. https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/hydrogen/hydrogen.htm. Accessed 15 Sept 2017
  5. 5.
    European Logistic Portal, Hydrogen fuel for cell electric cars on the rise in Germany (2017), http://www.eurologport.eu/hydrogen-fuel-for-cell-electric-cars-on-the-rise-in-germany/. Accessed 23 June 2017
  6. 6.
    Forbes, Japan’s big carmakers gang up in support of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, at least officially (2017), https://www.forbes.com/sites/bertelschmitt/2017/05/19/japans-big-carmakers-gang-up-in-support-of-hydrogen-at-least-officially/#731146c21a9d. Accessed 23 June 2017
  7. 7.
    IEEE Spectrum, Why the automotive future will be dominated by fuel cells (2016), https://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/fuel-cells/why-the-automotive-future-will-be-dominated-by-fuel-cells. Accessed 09 Mar 2017
  8. 8.
    L.K. Mitropoulos, P.D. Prevedouros, Trans. Res. Rec. 2344, 88 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bureau of Transportation Statistics, National household travel survey (2002), https://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/subject_areas/national_household_travel_survey/index.html. Accessed 28 Nov 2012
  10. 10.
    Edmunds Official Website (2012), http://www.edmunds.com. Accessed 25 Dec 15
  11. 11.
    S.C. Davis, S.W. Diegel, R.G. Boundy, Transportation Energy Data Book, 30th edn. (U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, 2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Consumer Leasing Guide (2002), http://leaseguide.com/index2.htm. Accessed 05 Dec 2010
  13. 13.
    A. Burnham, M. Wang, Y. Wu, Development and Applications of GREET 2.7 (Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, 2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    American Automobile Association, Your driving fixed costs (2012), http://www.aaa.com. Accessed 10 Mar 2012
  15. 15.
    U.S. Department of Energy, Alternative and advanced fuels—energy efficiency and renewable energy (2011), http://afdc.energy.gov/afdc/fuels/electricity_locations.html. Accessed 30 Dec 2012
  16. 16.
    J.M. Ogden, R.H. Williams, E.D. Larson, Energy Policy 32, 7 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Center for Transportation Research, Total Energy Cycle Assessment of Electric and Conventional Vehicles: An Energy and Environmental Analysis, vol. 1 (Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, 1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    American Public Transportation Association, Public Transportation Fact Book, 60th edn. (2009)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Texas Transportation Institute, Urban Mobility Report (2009), http://tti.tamu.edu/. Accessed 15 June 2012
  20. 20.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, User’s guide to MOBILE6.1 and MOBILE6.2 mobile source emission factor model (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    G.G. Fleming, R.E. Armstrong, E. Stusnick, K. Polcak, W. Lindeman, Transportation-related noise in United States. Transp. New Millenn. Transp. Res. Board (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    J. Smart, S. Schey, SAE International 1, 27 (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nissan (2014), http://www.nissanusa.com/electric-cars/leaf. Accessed Feb 2014
  24. 24.
    Toyota (2014), http://www.toyota.com. Accessed 10 Feb 2014
  25. 25.
    K. Chandler, N. Walkowicz, King County Metro Transit Hybrid Articulated Buses: Final Evaluation Results (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, 2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    G. Duleep, H. Essen, B. Kampman, M. Grünig, Impacts of electric vehicles—Deliverable 2. Assessment of electric vehicle and battery technology. Delft, CE Delft (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    M.A. Delucchi, A. Burke, T. Lipman, M. Miller, Electric and gasoline vehicle lifecycle cost and energy-use model, report for the California Air Resources Board. USD-ITS-RR-99-04 (2000)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    M. Duvall, Comparing the Benefits and Impacts of Hybrid Vehicle Options for Compact Sedan and Sport Utility Vehicles (EPRI, Palo Alto, 2002)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Toyota Service (2013), http://smg.toyotapartsandservice.com. Accessed 10 Sept 2013
  30. 30.
    M. Duvall, L. Browning, F. Kalhammer, W. Warf, D. Taylor, M. Wehrey, N. Pinsky, Advanced Batteries for Electric-Drive Vehicles: A Technology and Cost-Effectiveness Assessment for Battery Electric Vehicles, Power Assist Hybrid Electric Vehicles, and Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, 2004)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    B.M. Al-Alawi, T.H. Bradley, Appl. Energy 103, 488 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Green Car Reports, Electric car battery warranties compared (2016), http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1107864_electric-car-battery-warranties-compared. Accessed 23 June 2017
  33. 33.
    Colliers International, Parking Rate Survey (North America, Central Business District, 2010), http://downtownhouston.org/site_media/uploads/attachments/2010-0716/ColliersInternational_ParkingRateSurvey2010.pdf. Accessed 15 Jan 2011
  34. 34.
    Chevrolet, Official website (2014), http://www.chevrolet.com/. Accessed 15 Sept 2014
  35. 35.
    S.L. Zimmerman, H. Levinson, J. Public Transp. 7, 83 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    U.S. Census Bureau, Industry statistics sampler—Gasoline stations (2002), http://census.gov/econ/census02/data/industry/E4471.htm. Accessed 30 Dec 2010
  37. 37.
    Y.A., Phillis, E. Grigoroudis, V.S. Kouikoglou, Ecol. Econ. 70, 542 (2011)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Environmental Protection Agency, Average annual emissions and fuel consumption for gasoline-fueled passenger cars and light trucks (2008), http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/420f08024.pdf. Accessed 25 Dec 2015
  39. 39.
    U.S. Department of Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Electric and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (Energy Efficiency and Renewably Energy 2015). https://www.fueleconomy.gov. Accessed 25 Dec 2015
  40. 40.
    Environmental Protection Agency, EPA and NHTSA set standards to reduce greenhouse gases and improve fuel economy for model years 2017–2025 cars and light trucks (2012), http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f12051.pdf. Accessed 25 Dec 2015
  41. 41.
    D. Krajnc, P. Glavic, Conserv. Recycl. 43, 189 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    D. Paez, G. Currie, Improving transport planning decision making—Adapting the analytical hierarchy approach to large number of options. In Transportation Research Board Annual Conference, Washington D.C., 2008Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    S.D., Pohekar, M. Ramachandran, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 8, 365 (2009)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    L.K. Mitropoulos, P.D. Prevedouros, J. Urban Plan. Dev. 142, (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)up.1943-5444.0000336
  45. 45.
    J. Zheng, C. Atkinson-Palombo, C. McCahill, R. O’Hara, N.W. Garrick, Quantifying the economic domain of transportation sustainability. In Transportation Research Board 90th Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., 2011Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    C.M. Jeon, A. Amekudzi, R. Guensler. Sustainability assessment at the transportation planning level: performances and measures and indexes. In Transportation Research Board Annual Conference, Washington, D.C., 2008Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    K.P. Yoon, C.L. Hwang, Multiple Attribute Decision Making—An Introduction (Sage University Paper, London, 1995)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Model year light-duty vehicle GHG emissions and CAFE standards: supplemental notice of intent. Washington, D.C. (2010)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    RethinkX, Rethinking transportation (2017), https://www.rethinkx.com/executive-summary/. Accessed 10 Sept 2017

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lambros K. Mitropoulos
    • 1
  • Panos D. Prevedouros
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Hawaii at ManoaHonoluluUSA

Personalised recommendations