1 / 21

Valuing Plug-in Vehicle Air Emission and Oil Consumption Benefits

Valuing Plug-in Vehicle Air Emission and Oil Consumption Benefits. Jeremy J. Michalek, Paulina Jaramillo, Mikhail Chester, Costa Samaras, C.-S. Norman Shiau and Lester B. Lave. Vehicle electrification. Plug-in Hybrid Electric. Hybrid-Electric. Battery Electric. Conventional. PHEV. CV. HEV.

neviah
Download Presentation

Valuing Plug-in Vehicle Air Emission and Oil Consumption Benefits

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Valuing Plug-in Vehicle Air Emission and Oil Consumption Benefits Jeremy J. Michalek, Paulina Jaramillo, Mikhail Chester, Costa Samaras, C.-S. Norman Shiau and Lester B. Lave

  2. Vehicle electrification Plug-in Hybrid Electric Hybrid-Electric Battery Electric Conventional PHEV CV HEV BEV Power Convertor Engine & Motor Engine & Motor Engine Motor Battery Pack - Small Medium Large Gasoline    Electricity  

  3. Associate Professor Jeremy MichalekEPP and Mechanical Eng.Vehicle design and life cycle implications Dr. Constantine SamarasRAND Corporation (EPP Alum)Policy assessment Grace HeckmannMarket demand for alternative vehicles Assistant Professor Jay WhitacreEPP and Material Science and Eng.Battery technology Orkun KarabasogluLife cycle implications of driving cycles Professor Chris HendricksonCivil & Environmental Eng.Transportation and life cycle assessment Scott PetersonLife cycle air emissions, battery life, vehicle to grid Assistant Professor Shawn LitsterMechanical Eng.Fuel cells Apurba SaktiBattery design and cost modeling Professor Francis McMichaelEPP and Civil & Environmental Eng.Battery technology, life cycle assessment Elizabeth TrautPlug-in vehicle design and charging infrastructure optimization Associate Professor Illah NourbakhshRobotics InstituteElectric vehicle conversions Tugce YukselBattery degradation and thermal management Gregg PodnarRobotics InstituteElectric vehicle conversions

  4. Benefits of PHEVs • Greenhouse gas emissions • 28% of GHG emissions from transportation (EPA) • Air pollution • 22,000-52,000 deaths per year from air pollution (JAMA) • Oil dependency • Cost U.S. economy ~$0.5 trillion in 2008 (Greene)

  5. How much can xEVs help? • xEVs offset gasoline use • Reduces oil dependency • xEVs change emissions profile • Fewer emissions associated with gasoline production and combustion • More emissions associated with battery and electricity production • xEVs change location of emissions • Location doesn’t matter for GHGs, but… • Damage done by air pollution highly depends on where it is released (population density, etc.)

  6. Location drives air pollution damage

  7. Data • Cohon et al. 2010 NRC study “The Hidden Costs of Energy” • Quantify externality damages to human health, crops, buildings, etc. • $6M value of statistical life • Morbidity also accounted for • Argonne National Labs (GREET) • Vehicle efficiency, emissions, and design • Life cycle emissions from refineries, factories, etc. • National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) • Distribution of driving patterns in the U.S.

  8. Lifetime emissions damages • Emissions damage reduction potential of plug-in vehicles • Optimistic: $1000 damage reduction over the life • Pessimistic: $6000 damage increase over the life

  9. Ownership costs ** ANL calls DOE program goals “very optimistic”

  10. Net life cycle costs • Optimistic: Plug-in vehicles slightly less expensive over the life. Costs drive comparison, not damages • Pessimistic: Plug-in vehicles could cost much more while causing more damage

  11. Oil dependency • Oil Supply Disruption • Externalities estimated at $0.11/gal (Brown and Huntington) • Not enough to change trends • Market Power • US Monopsony effect: $0.22/gal (Leiby) • Military spending: • $75-$90 billion in 2009 (RAND) : $0.24-$0.28/gal • But… • Spending is nonlinear: Marginal reductions may have near-zero effect on military spending • Less than half of each bbl oil produced is used to make gasoline – large reductions require coordination

  12. Cost of oil consumption Total Externalities + Monopsony Premium (Base Case)

  13. Other externalities • Rebound effect • Lower operating costs may encourage more driving • Higher congestion costs • Higher accident rates • These externalities have higher associated costs than emissions (Delucchi) • Will range issues combat rebound effect?

  14. Take away • Emissions damage reduction potential of plug-in vehicles • Upper bound: Hydro electricity • BEV reduces damages $1000 over HEV • Lower bound: Coal electricity • BEV increases damages $6000 over HEV • Worth the cost? • Damage reductions are small compared to ownership costs • Across most scenarios, electrification is better only when it saves consumers money • If it’s cheaper, market will drive adoption • If it’s not, emissions benefits don’t justify the extra cost • Oil dependency • Externalities, monopsony effect, and marginal security spending not enough to tip the balance • Small is Beautiful • More batteries  more green • Large packs are underutilized • Extra emissions from production, weight • HEVs and PHEVs with small battery packs are most efficient and robust • Offer a good solution across a wide range of scenarios • Reduce more GHGs per dollar spent

  15. Decisionmakers • Federal Decisionmakers • U.S. House and Senate • EPA • DOE • NHTSA • State and Local Decisionmakers • California CEC and ARB • Other states interested in Evs • Private Decisionmakers • Automotive manufacturers • Utilities

  16. Acknowledgements • Co-authors • Prof. Chris Hendrickson (CMU)Civil & Environmental Engineering • Prof. H. Scott Matthews (CMU) Civil & Environmental EngineeringEngineering & Public Policy • Prof. Jay Whitacre(CMU)Material Science & EngineeringEngineering & Public Policy • Dr. Mikhail Chester (UC Berkeley)Civil & Environmental Engineering • Dr. Paulina Jamarillo(CMU)Engineering & Public PolicyTepper School of Business • Dr. Constantine Samaras (RAND) • Dr. Ching-Shin Norman Shiau(CMU/Dell)Mechanical Engineering • Scott Peterson (CMU) Engineering & Public Policy • Nikhil Kaushal(CMU) Mechanical Engineering • Richard Hauffe(Lockheed Martin) • Carnegie Mellon • Green Design Institute • Vehicle Electrification Group • Design Decisions Lab • Support • NSF CAREER Grant #0747911 • NSF MUSES Grant #0628084 • Ford Motor Company • Toyota Motor Corp • CMU Climate Decision Making Center, NSF SES Grant #0345798 • Teresa Heinz Scholars for Environmental Research Program • Steinbrenner Institute

  17. Questions &Discussion jmichalek@cmu.edu whitacre@andrew.cmu.edu

  18. BackupSlides

  19. Breakdown of emissions damages

  20. Sensitivity • Extensive sensitivity analysis on emissions and costs

  21. Research direction • Regional Assessment: Where is better to electrify (grid mix, temperature, terrain, driving style, driving distance, etc.) • Battery Thermal Management: When worth paying the cost and energy to gain battery performance and life? • Infrastructure: Assess technical, economic and environmental implications of battery charging and swapping stations • Cell & System Design: Thin vs. thick electrode cells for different applications, combination on same bus? • Consumer Preferences: Willingness to pay for PHEV attributes • On Road:HymotionPrius with sensors for road testing and validation, ChargeCar project, Toyota PHEV fleet

More Related