Lifecycle analysis of energy use and pollution from gasoline, CNG and electric vehicles in 6 southwestern states highlights variability of benefits
29 July 2013
|
|
| Comparison of greenhouse gas emissions from new vehicles in 2020, EVs by state power mix. Percentages are relative to gasoline baseline. Click to enlarge. |
A report for policymakers issued by the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP) has found that in Arizona, Colorado and Nevada, electric vehicles offer the cleanest ride, while in New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming that’s not necessarily the case. SWEEP promotes greater energy efficiency in a six-state region that includes Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming.
The report, “Transportation Fuels for the Southwest”, compared the well-to-wheels energy use and air pollution emitted by vehicles fueled by gasoline, compressed natural gas and electricity in order to determine which fuel is cleanest in each of the six southwestern states.
This report follows an earlier report released by the Southwest Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP), Policies to Promote Electric Vehicles in the Southwest. The earlier report provided analysis of the policies that have been adopted to support electric vehicles by state governments across the Southwest, and found a wide variation in policy support. This new report identifies the states where electric vehicles offer the greatest emissions benefits. These are the states where supportive policies make the most sense, SWEEP suggests.
What becomes clear is that the emissions benefits of EVs compared to traditional gasoline-fueled and compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles vary significantly from state to state and are highly dependent upon the fuels used to generate electricity in each state. For instance, today EVs are much cleaner in Arizona and Nevada, which use relatively low amounts of coal to generate their electricity supply, than in Wyoming, which produces almost all of its electricity from coal. Because coal-fired power plants are a major contributor to smog and greenhouse gas emissions in the Southwest, coal’s use in the production of electricity consumed in each state is a key determinant—though not the only one—of whether EVs are cleaner or not.
What’s more, over the next several years the electricity fuel mix in the Southwest is expected to shift towards less coal and more natural gas and renewable electricity. Because of these more efficient and cleaner fuel sources, electric vehicles will use less energy and produce fewer emissions every year they are on the road. During the same time frame, new gasoline, CNG and electric vehicles will also become more efficient. This report considers all of these factors.
...A word of caution on interpreting these results: for emissions that contribute to smog, the location where the pollution is emitted is very important. Gasoline and CNG vehicles driven in urban areas emit pollution directly into urban airsheds; in many cases, the power plants that supply EVs are located outside of these urban areas. For example, we have conducted a more fine-grained analysis of emissions from EVs in Utah, which concluded that EVs provide significant air quality benefits to the Salt Lake City area, because most of the emissions are outside of the urban airshed.
—“Transportation Fuels for the Southwest”
SWEEP used Argonne’s GREET model to make a comparison between the life-cycle energy use and emissions of three light-duty vehicle fuels: gasoline, compressed natural gas (CNG) and electricity. The authors analyzed the energy consumption and emissions of the three vehicle fuels in three different scenarios: new vehicles in 2013; 2013 vehicles in 2020; and new vehicles in 2020.
The three scenarios demonstrate the effects of two major trends: the planned improvements in fuel economy for new vehicles, and the shift in the electrical generation sector away from coal and towards natural gas and renewables. While the fuel economy improvements are a federal requirement and therefore expected to be consistent across the southwestern states, the changes in the electrical generation vary considerably by state.
|
|
| Summary of best performing vehicle in each state. Click to enlarge. |
Among the findings of the analysis:
In all six states, electric and CNG vehicles offer significant benefits by 2020 in reduced emissions of ozone precursors compared to gasoline vehicles.
By 2020, EVs in Arizona, Colorado and Wyoming provide a greater reduction in NOx emissions compared to CNG vehicles; in Nevada, New Mexico and Utah NOx emissions are relatively similar by 2020.
In all states, EVs have the lowest level of VOC emissions. Thus, policies to increase the use of EVs may be an important component of strategies to reduce urban air pollution and improve public health in all of the southwestern states, the report suggests. This is also important for states that will be required to show compliance by 2020 with an expected new ground-level ozone standard from the EPA.
Emissions of greenhouse gases vary widely between states. SWEEP’s analysis shows significant GHG reductions from EVs in Arizona, Colorado, and Nevada compared to gasoline and CNG vehicles, suggesting that policies designed to increase the use of EVs in these states could be an important strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the impacts of climate change.
In Wyoming, New Mexico and Utah, however, electric vehicles tend to have lower emissions than gasoline vehicles and CNG vehicles tend to have lower emissions than electric vehicles. In these states, in order to have a positive climate benefit, policies to increase use of EVs should be coupled with additional efforts to shift electricity generation from coal to natural gas and renewables.
The Southwest Energy Efficiency Project is a public interest organization that advances energy efficiency policy in Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming.
Resources
Another incorrectly done LCA. LCA to be credible must follow the rules of ISO 14000.
LCA is a tool when properly performed will help solve environmental problems. If and when BEV are charged with excess renewable energy or nuclear, then and only then, are the emission from BEV not from generating power with fossil fuel.
The second rule is that you have to have an 'impact' on the environment. If air quality is 'good' then there is not smog. A BEV will not reduce 'good' to 'gooder' air quality.
Posted by: Kit P | 29 July 2013 at 06:45 AM
Thanks for doing the digging Kit P - wondered if they were using the marginal generating capacity.
Posted by: DavidJ | 29 July 2013 at 07:23 AM
Isn't the big unknown here how much methane escapes when natural gas is drill for, produced, and transported, especially when the drilling process is fracking? There is some evidence this contribution to the GHG effect makes natural gas worse than coal. I suspect the report ignores this very significant issue.
Posted by: TLS | 29 July 2013 at 07:35 AM
ISO 14001 deals with compliance with mostly state regulations. According to the EIA, Wyoming generated 118.5 metric tons per capita in 2010, the highest in the nation.
Mostly due to the fact that Wyoming is the second-largest energy producer in the US, but it has less than 600,000 people.
If you have any association with the Coal Industry, then you should state so. My experience is in the ElectricPower industry both as an employee and as a consultant.
Since 1970 I have done optimization for Fuel Management Systems and studied the Coal Industry.
Posted by: Account Deleted | 29 July 2013 at 08:12 AM
Correction: Wyoming generated 118.5 metric tons per capita of CO2 emissions in 2010.
Posted by: Account Deleted | 29 July 2013 at 08:14 AM
The sooner fossil fuels are have ALL been used up, the better will be the planet. Meanwhile, we should learn to burn them with the least pollution possible.
Posted by: HarveyD | 29 July 2013 at 08:16 AM
A similar study was published in the last IEEE Spectrum and came to the same conclusion. It also included air pollution generated by mining rare earth metals as well as other materials used in EVs. Bottom line EV's came out at the top in terms of negative environmental impact as compared to CNG as well as gasoline powered vehicles. The EV lobby naturally will deny or ignore such findings.
Posted by: Mannstein | 29 July 2013 at 08:32 AM
We will not run out of fossil fuels in the next 1000 years. We can however use better techniques to extract these fuels, e.g. in situ gasification, Envidity, Wesley Clark and produce energy without GHG or VOC or NOx emissions. This is the real future.
Posted by: Account Deleted | 29 July 2013 at 08:37 AM
@Kit
They have used the GREET database from ANL. I always thought that GREET was in line with ISO 14040/14044. Do you have information that it would not? If so, please elaborate this in some more detail.
Posted by: Peter_XX | 29 July 2013 at 09:32 AM
Brought to you by your friendly oil distributor.
Gun your ride to the local 7-11 for your favorite co-sponsored tobacco health products. Studies may vary.
Posted by: kelly | 29 July 2013 at 11:35 AM
Also in today's GCC:
'The incidence of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL)—any of a large group of cancers of lymphocytes (white blood cells)—is significantly higher in regions near facilities that release the chemical benzene into the environment, according to a new study published in CANCER, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Cancer Society.'
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013/07/nhl-20130729.html
Posted by: Davemart | 29 July 2013 at 12:01 PM
Me irritates assumption that power generation will stay as it is or become more dirty. Some GH source should cleaned and cheepest way to do is cleaning power generation. It shoul be done anyway. Increased power consumtion by transportation only facilitates the task.
Rear erths. Guys forgoten that Tesla using AC motors and IMO
that will be general trend. Therefore no rear erths will be needed.
Posted by: Darius | 29 July 2013 at 12:36 PM
Fossil fuels supporters and hired lobbies will spent xxx$B to convince believers and nonbelievers that burning fossil fuels is good for our health and/or will make us feel better?
Industrial/junk foods, legal and over the counter drugs, so called energy drinks etc sellers have been doing the same for years. The results is that for the first time in centuries, our children and grandchildren have a lower life expectancy than us together with more diseases and an extra 100 lbs to carry around.
It will take many decades to de-program the many millions who believe that BS.
Posted by: HarveyD | 29 July 2013 at 01:00 PM
@Harvey:
Where on earth you get the crazy notion that life expectancy is going down I can't imagine.
The nearest we come to that is in a very limited subsection of the population, poor Caucasian women in some states in the US:
http://www.examiner.com/article/officials-perplexed-why-life-span-is-decreasing-among-some-us-women
Please don't make such unfounded claims, which provide a target for the poster on this forum who ignores all evidence for the harmful effects of fossil fuels, and swears black is white that sucking on an exhaust pipe is health-giving.
Setting up an easily shot down target by such wild claims is the cover he needs.
Posted by: Davemart | 29 July 2013 at 03:09 PM
@Mannstein said:
'Bottom line EV's came out at the top in terms of negative environmental impact as compared to CNG as well as gasoline powered vehicles. The EV lobby naturally will deny or ignore such findings.'
Why should they, since presumably by 'top' you mean had the least environmental impact?
If not, please provide a proper link to the study you are sourcing the information from.
Posted by: Davemart | 29 July 2013 at 03:12 PM
@Peter
“They have used the GREET database from ANL. ”
All models are wrong, some are useful. It also depends on what problem you are trying to solve. I am not impressed with our national labs when it comes to about anything except making nuclear weapons.
For example, if you lived in a city that had poor air quality and the cause was cars; then BEV powered by a coal plant far from the city might be a good choice.
In this case, the study is not very useful.
Posted by: Kit P | 29 July 2013 at 04:29 PM
There is one thing that stood out like a sore thumb; the state of Wyoming is not even an official Southwest state. I wonder how did Wyoming buy representation in this organization?
Posted by: TexasDesert | 29 July 2013 at 05:35 PM
I have spent one hour looking over this study in details. I think one of the primary problem with this study is the mislabeling of the chart column "Average Gasoline" that was represented by the red color. That column should be properly named "Light Duty Vehicle".
For example, in year 2020 they projected an improvement of MPG for light duty vehicles. This is all well and good, but the improvements can be traced to hybridization and electrification. Then they compound the error by attributing all of the improvements under "Average Gasoline".
There might be other mistakes I have not spotted, but this one is pretty significant.
Posted by: TexasDesert | 29 July 2013 at 06:50 PM
@Kit
Well, I could agree that this is not one of the best studies I have seen but I would not say “…not very useful”. For example, it highlights the importance of electricity production for EVs.
Among US research organizations conducting LCA/WTW, I would rank MIT and ANL the highest. MIT has higher competence when it comes to vehicle systems and ANL would rank higher in the field of fuel production. Including all the other research institutions in the USA, who would you rank the highest?
Finally, I asked you a specific question but I only got a vague answer. A general statement like “all models are wrong”, is not the answer I expected. If you possess such comprehensive knowledge in this field as you seem to pretend, I would certainly want to know what is wrong with GREET and why it would not follow ISO 14040/44.
Posted by: Peter_XX | 29 July 2013 at 11:04 PM
Kit claimed:
'Another incorrectly done LCA. LCA to be credible must follow the rules of ISO 14000.'
PeterXX replied:
'They have used the GREET database from ANL. I always thought that GREET was in line with ISO 14040/14044. Do you have information that it would not? If so, please elaborate this in some more detail. '
To which Kit said:
'All models are wrong, some are useful. It also depends on what problem you are trying to solve. I am not impressed with our national labs when it comes to about anything except making nuclear weapons. '
Notice the complete evasion of the point, that the model does indeed follow ISO 14000, contrary to his original claim.
Instead we are told that he does not fancy it, as it does not agree with his prejudices.
This is not debate, but propaganda, which Kit relentless spews out.
We are on to you, Kit.
Posted by: Davemart | 30 July 2013 at 02:21 AM
I would like an answer from Kit.
Posted by: Peter_XX | 30 July 2013 at 08:09 AM
@Peter
“For example, it highlights the importance of electricity production for EVs.”
That is certainly not a new concept. That makes the study not very useful. There have been many LCA studies reducing the environmental impact of making power. Some are very useful to me as an engineer in the power industry.
“who would you rank the highest?”
Not in the ranking business, I read studies to learn new and useful information. For LCA on BEV Carnegie Mellon has recently done some good work.
“I only got a vague answer”
No, you got an answer you did not like. If a model is useful, I want to spend some time finding out if meets the rules for using it. For example today at work there is a calculation may provide the information I need to answer a question but I think the model is wrong. So at the meeting I asked some questions. Turns out I was correct the model is wrong but it is conservative. Therefore, the model is useful.
The GREET model should be put in context of all the LCA models that show effective solutions to ghg. BEV are just a very poor and expensive solution.
If people want to drive a BEV because they are self-indulgent geeks that is just fine with me. However, spare me that you are doing it for the mother earth.
Posted by: Kit P | 30 July 2013 at 12:49 PM
Haven't had a chance to read the study, does it assume GHG emissions in the production of gasoline and NG to be the same in the future?
Posted by: Mskz06 . | 30 July 2013 at 01:58 PM
@Kit
I can agree with you that EVs are a very poor and expensive solution. (One of the best studies in this field by MIT showed this very clearly already a couple of years ago.) However, I would not dismiss the present study as you do without any concrete arguments. Maybe I have overlooked something that you have found. Therefore, I asked you for more details. However, nothing this time either... (I definitely cannot comment on what some people said at a meeting you attended.) Since you did not provide any arguments this time either, I will give my view.
I studied the GREET database a couple of years ago but I have actually never used it for any work. The main reason why I did not use GREET was that the conditions are mostly applicable to the USA and does not represent Europe (later, I have mostly relied on the JRC/EUCAR/CONCAWE data, which represent EU much better). The ISO standards were not so much on the agenda at that time, so I could not recall at the time I wrote my previous comments if GREET followed these standards or not. However, I have great respect for ANL and if they would not follow the standards to 100%, I am sure that they would have very good reasons why not. Today, I did a quick search on the Internet and found the comment below in one of the papers published by ANL. I think that it answers the question. Note that the ISO standards are very general and basically, besides a few fundamental guidelines, all you need to do is to thoroughly state what you have done. GREET would fulfil these criteria. Furthermore, the GREET database has been used in numerous publications by ANL and many others. Many of these publications have been peer-reviewed. Nobody can be 100% correct but I am sure that some of the reviewers would have noted any larger errors. In summary, I find the criticism you made on the methodology is not well-founded when it comes to the basic data from GREET. This does not imply that I think the SWEET study is very good. I would prefer a similar study made by ANL. The study I rank the highest was conducted by MIT a couple of years ago and I have referred to it numerous times on this site so I will not do it again this time.
“The allocation of energy use in petroleum refineries at the refining process level in this study follows the recommendation of ISO 14041 that allocations should be accomplished at the subprocess level when possible.”
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://greet.es.anl.gov/publication-1c49xpjg
Posted by: Peter_XX | 30 July 2013 at 02:13 PM
@ Peter
“However, I would not dismiss the present study as you do without any concrete arguments. ”
I presented concrete arguments in the first post.
“does not represent Europe ”
Where do you live? Maybe you do not understand the US form of BS.
“I have great respect for ANL ”
Why? About the only thing DOE does well these days is waste tax dollars. Keeping scientists at our national labs busy doing work that is outside their field expertise should be a reason to respect them. They all have zero practical engineering experience. Following the link to ANL we get this about GREET:
“Updated electricity generation mixes ”
Power does not come from a mix, it comes from power plants.
Posted by: Kit P | 30 July 2013 at 05:16 PM