Life Cycle Analysis: HEV vs Conventional Vehicle

Copyright © Michigan Tech

Class Period 01 Page: 1

Advanced Propulsion Systems for Electric Vehicles Laboratory

MEEM / EE 5296Assignment - 02

Product Life Cycle: HEV vs Conventional Vehicle

(Manufacturing, Utilization, Recycling etc.)

H R R Vedanth Iyengar

Graduate Student, Mechanical Engineering

[email protected]


Class Period 01 Page: 2Motive

Vehicles- one of the most important personal assets and liabilities costing almost $100 000 over the “lifetime” responsible for 42 000 highway deaths and 4 million injuries each year consumes two-third of the total petroleum production illness and premature death due to the emissions. environmental hazard. According to EPA-

• Transportation: 32%• Electricity: 38%

Greener Processes > Greener ProductsCurrent regulations focus only on Tailpipe emissions – Utilization

Visible Easy to measure Becomes a habitConcentrating only on utilization

Total CO2 emissions


Class Period 01 Page: 3Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

• Cradle to grave analyses tool for a product/process Compiles an inventory of input/outputs Evaluates the potential environmental impacts

LCA is important to Vehicle Regulations/Policy makers & industry tailpipe emissions are only a part of the story! to know how green a vehicle is? utilization of energy and associated emissions = Carbon Footprint Big-Picture approach – improving one aspect/technology may give rise to

emissions elsewhere

• CARB considered only tailpipe emissions back in 1998 and so had to bump the regulation requirement of ZEV sales from 2% to 10% by 2003.

of a product or service system throughout its life-cycle



L C A

Image taken from: worldautosteel.org


Class Period 01 Page: 5EPA LCA Chart

Figure taken from: Paula Moon, Andrew Burnham and Michael Wang, “Vehicle-Cycle Energy and Emission Effects of Conventional and Advanced Vehicles”, SAE TECHNICAL PAPER SERIES 2006-01-0375


Class Period 01 Page: 6A General Idea-Talking points

End of Use Product : Landfill

Figure taken from: Vishesh Kumar and John W. Sutherland, “Sustainability of the automotive recycling infrastructure: review of cureent research and identification of future challenges, Int. J. Sustainable Manufacturing. Vol 1, Nos. ½, 2008




Class Period 01 Page: 8Recycling

• Total annual revenue is estimated to be $22 billion

• Saves an estimated 85 million barrels of oil a year, that would have been used in the manufacturing of new or replacement parts

• Automotive recycling businesses employ some 103,108 people at more than 8,267 businesses around the country

• Cars are the number one recycled product in the United States with a whopping 12-15 million vehicles/annum

• Vehicle Recovery Rates in the US are around 95%. But due to the E-mobility drive, this figure is dropping down.

• These vehicles use more plastics and composite materials than conventional vehicles, which use primarily steel

• Rechargeable batteries are handled separately

Data compiled from a 1997 survey by the private consulting firm, Axiom Research Company and Automotive Recycling: Your Cars Afterlife (2-13-2006).


Class Period 01 Page: 9Material Recovery Route

Impact on the business:

• Shredders & Dismantlers will recover less material and pay more for landfill

• More landfill more degradation of the natural environment

• Therefore, the recovery and recycling of plastics and composites is one of the

major issues of interest.

• We need a recycling infrastructure and technological advancement for

HEV/EV recycling!

Figure taken from: L. Harrison and D. Doerffel, “Life Cycle Impacts and Sustainability Considerations for Alternative and Conventional Vehicles”, SAE TECHNICAL PAPER SERIES 2003-01-0642


Class Period 01 Page: 10Utilization Costs


Costs in Euros


Class Period 01 Page: 11Utilization Metrics

Per annum vehicular measures


Total Life Span of Maintenance Impacts


Class Period 01 Page: 12Fuel Production for HEV/EVs

Figure taken from: Mikhail Granovskii, Ibrahim Dincer , Marc A. Rosen, “∗ Economic and environmental comparison of conventional, hybrid, electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles”, Journal of Power Sources 159 (2006) 1186–1193

Scenario 1: Renewable sourcesScenario 2: 50% renewable sources + 50% natural gas Scenario 3: Natural gas


Class Period 01 Page: 13Big Picture: Fuel Cycle + Vehicle Cycle +Operation

Total energy-cycle energy use (kJ/km)

Total energy-cycle Greenhouse gas emissions (g/km)




Total energy-cycle PM emissions (g/km)

Total energy-cycle SOx emissions (g/km)



Class Period 01 Page: 15Pugh Analysis

Figure taken from: Heather L. MacLean, Lester B. Lave “Evaluating automobile fuel/propulsion system technologies”, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 29 (2003) 1–69



http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2009/08/18161245/7

LCA Interpretation




Class Period 01 Page: 17Conclusions

• Immediate need for a viable/thriving infrastructure > mass adoption and acceptance of e-mobility

• We often restrict our discussions to the charging infrastructure, battery technology, vehicle/battery cost

• Ecosystem perspective recommends a broader discussion on the same with inclusion of recycling, manufacturing and LCA for the HEV/EVs


Class Period 01 Page: 18Final Verdict

• In particular, gasoline or diesel in an internal combustion engine (ICE) is currently the cheapest system and is likely to continue to be the cheapest system through 2020.

• Conventional Propulsion – good for well-to-tank <an age-old technology>

• HEV/EV/H2 – good for tank-to-wheel <Efficient Powertrain>

• Absent a breakthrough in Battery technology, no significant eMobility i.e. HEVS are good but EVs will continue to be expensive and unattractive range

Vedanth


Class Period 01 Page: 19Bibliography

• Figure taken from: Paula Moon, Andrew Burnham and Michael Wang, “Vehicle-Cycle Energy and Emission Effects of Conventional and Advanced Vehicles”, SAE TECHNICAL PAPER SERIES 2006-01-0375

• http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2009/08/18161245/7

• Figure taken from: Heather L. MacLean, Lester B. Lave “Evaluating automobile fuel/propulsion system technologies”, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 29 (2003) 1–69

• Figure taken from: L. Harrison and D. Doerffel, “Life Cycle Impacts and Sustainability Considerations for Alternative and Conventional Vehicles”, SAE TECHNICAL PAPER SERIES 2003-01-0642

• Figure taken from: Mikhail Granovskii, Ibrahim Dincer , Marc A. Rosen, “∗ Economic and environmental comparison of conventional, hybrid, electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles”, Journal of Power Sources 159 (2006) 1186–1193

• Data compiled from a 1997 survey by the private consulting firm, Axiom Research Company and Automotive Recycling: Your Cars Afterlife (2-13-2006).






• Figure taken from: Vishesh Kumar and John W. Sutherland, “Sustainability of the automotive recycling infrastructure: review of cureent research and identification of future challenges, Int. J. Sustainable Manufacturing. Vol 1, Nos. ½, 2008

• Heather L. MacLeana, Lester B. Lave, “Evaluating automobile fuel/propulsion system technologies”, Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 29 (2003) 1–69

• Heather L. MacLeana, Lester B. Lave, “An environmental-economic evaluation of hybrid electric vehicles: Toyota Prius vs. its conventional internal combustion engine Corolla”, Transportation Research Part D 7 (2002) 155-162