Search Results

A methodology for evaluating life cycle cost of electric vehicles (EVs) to their buyers is presented. The methodology is based on an analysis of conventional vehicle costs, costs of drivetrain and auxiliary components unique to EVs, and battery costs. The conventional vehicle's costs are allocated to such subsystems as body, chassis, and powertrain. In electric vehicles, an electric drive is substituted for the conventional powertrain. The current status of the electric drive components and battery costs is evaluated. Battery costs are estimated by evaluating the material requirements and production costs at different production levels; battery costs are also collected from other sources. Costs of auxiliary components, such as those for heating and cooling the passenger compartment, are also estimated. Here, the methodology is applied to two vehicle types: subcompact car and minivan.

In 1994, Ford produced a small demonstration fleet of Mercury Sables with aluminum bodies. Argonne National Laboratory obtained one of these vehicles on a lease so that Laboratory staff could observe the wear characteristics of the body under normal operating conditions. The vehicle was placed in the transportation pool, parked outdoors, and used by staff members for both local and longer trips. The vehicle performed normally, except for having particularly good acceleration because of its light weight and high-power SHO engine. No significant problems were encountered that related to the Al body or engine. No special driving protocols were observed, but a log was kept of trip lengths and fuel purchases. Fuel economy was observed to be improved, compared with that of a similar conventional steel-bodied vehicle that was available for one year of the lease period. The vehicle was tested on a chassis dynamometer to obtain emissions and fuel economy over the federal test cycle.

Electric vehicle batteries use energy and generate environmental residuals when they are produced and recycled. This study estimates, for four selected battery types (advanced lead-acid, sodium-sulfur, nickel-cadmium, and nickel-metal hydride), the impacts of production and recycling of the materials used in electric vehicle batteries. These impacts are compared, with special attention to the locations of the emissions. It is found that the choice among batteries for electric vehicles involves tradeoffs among impacts. For example, although the nickel-cadmium and nickel-metal hydride batteries are similar, energy requirements for production of the cadmium electrodes may be higher than those for the metal hydride electrodes, but the latter may be more difficult to recycle.

The life-cycle energy and fuel-use impacts of U.S.-produced aluminum-intensive passenger cars and passenger trucks are assessed. The energy analysis includes vehicle fuel consumption, material production energy, and recycling energy. A model that simulates market dynamics was used to project aluminum-intensive vehicle market shares and national energy savings potential for the period between 2005 and 2030. We conclude that there is a net energy savings with the use of aluminum-intensive vehicles. Manufacturing costs must be reduced to achieve significant market penetration of aluminum-intensive vehicles. The petroleum energy saved from improved fuel efficiency offsets the additional energy needed to manufacture aluminum compared to steel. The energy needed to make aluminum can be reduced further if wrought aluminum is recycled back to wrought aluminum. We find that oil use is displaced by additional use of natural gas and nonfossil energy, but use of coal is lower.

Recent advances in fuel-cell technology and low-emission, direct-injection spark-ignition and diesel engines for vehicles could significantly change the transportation vehicle power plant landscape in the next decade or so. This paper is a scoping study that compares total fuel cycle options for providing power to personal transport vehicles. The key question asked is, “How much of the energy from the fuel feedstock is available for motive power?” Emissions of selected criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases are qualitatively discussed. This analysis illustrates the differences among options; it is not intended to be exhaustive. Cases considered are hydrogen fuel from methane and from iso-octane in generic proton-exchange membrane (PEM) fuel-cell vehicles, methane and iso-octane in spark-ignition (SI) engine vehicles, and diesel fuel (from methane or petroleum) in direct-injection (DI) diesel engine vehicles.