Refine
Document Type
Language
- English (6)
Has Fulltext
- yes (6) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (6)
Keywords
- CO2-Bilanz (6) (remove)
Institute
This research conducted a probabilistic life-cycle assessment (pLCA) into the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions performance of nine combinations of truck size and powertrain technology for a recent past and a future (largely decarbonised) situation in Australia. This study finds that the relative and absolute life-cycle GHG emissions performance strongly depends on the vehicle class, powertrain and year of assessment. Life-cycle emission factor distributions vary substantially in their magnitude, range and shape. Diesel trucks had lower life-cycle GHG emissions in 2019 than electric trucks (battery, hydrogen fuel cell), mainly due to the high carbon-emission intensity of the Australian electricity grid (mainly coal) and hydrogen production (mainly through steam–methane reforming). The picture is, however, very different for a more decarbonised situation, where battery electric trucks, in particular, provide deep reductions (about 75–85%) in life-cycle GHG emissions. Fuel-cell electric (hydrogen) trucks also provide substantial reductions (about 50–70%), but not as deep as those for battery electric trucks. Moreover, hydrogen trucks exhibit the largest uncertainty in emissions performance, which reflects the uncertainty and general lack of information for this technology. They therefore carry an elevated risk of not achieving the expected emission reductions. Battery electric trucks show the smallest (absolute) uncertainty, which suggests that these trucks are expected to deliver the deepest and most robust emission reductions. Operational emissions (on-road driving and vehicle maintenance combined) dominate life-cycle emissions for all vehicle classes. Vehicle manufacturing and upstream emissions make a relatively small contribution to life-cycle emissions from diesel trucks (<5% each), but these are important aspects for electric trucks (5% to 30%).
Background: The environmental impact of electric scooters has been the subject of critical debate in the scientific community for the past 5 years. The data published so far are very inhomogeneous and partly methodologically incomplete. Most of the data available in the literature suffer from an average bias of 34%, because end-of-life (EOL) impacts have not been modelled, reported or specified. In addition, the average lifetime mileage of shared fleets of e-scooters, as they are operated in cities around the world, has recently turned out to be much lower than expected. This casts the scooters in an unfavourable light for the necessary mobility transition. Data on impact categories other than the global warming potential (GWP) are scarce. This paper aims to quantify the strengths and weaknesses of e-scooters in terms of their contribution to sustainable transport by more specifically defining and extending the life cycle assessment (LCA) modelling conditions: the modelling is based on two genuine material inventories obtained by dismantling two different e-scooters, one based on a traditional aluminium frame and another, for the first time, based on plastic material.
Results: This study provides complete inventory data to facilitate further LCA modelling of electric kick scooters. The plastic scooter had a 26% lower lifetime GWP than the aluminium vehicle. A favourable choice of electric motor promises a further reduction in GWP. In addition to GWP, the scooter's life cycles were assessed across seven other impact categories and showed no critical environmental or health impacts compared to a passenger car. On the other hand, only the resource extraction impact revealed clear advantages for electric scooters compared to passenger cars.
Conclusions: Under certain conditions, scooters can still be an important element of the desired mobility transition. To assure a lifetime long enough is the crucial factor to make the electric scooter a favourable or even competitive vehicle in a future sustainable mobility system. A scooter mileage of more than 5400 km is required to achieve lower CO2eq/pkm emissions compared to passenger cars, which seems unlikely in today's standard use case of shared scooter fleets. In contrast, a widespread use of e-scooters as a commuting tool is modelled to be able to save 4% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions across the German mobility sector.
Concerns over climate change, air pollution, and oil supply have stimulated the market for battery electric vehicles (BEVs). The environmental impacts of BEVs are typically evaluated through a standardized life-cycle assessment (LCA) methodology. Here, the LCA literature was surveyed with the objective to sketch the major trends and challenges in the impact assessment of BEVs. It was found that BEVs tend to be more energy efficient and less polluting than conventional cars. BEVs decrease exposure to air pollution as their impacts largely result from vehicle production and electricity generation outside of urban areas. The carbon footprint of BEVs, being highly sensitive to the carbon intensity of the electricity mix, may decrease in the nearby future through a shift to renewable energies and technology improvements in general. A minority of LCAs covers impact categories other than carbon footprint, revealing a mixed picture. Up to date little attention is paid so far in LCA to the efficiency advantage of BEVs in urban traffic, the gap between on-road and certified energy consumption, the local exposure to air pollutants and noise and the aging of emissions control technologies in conventional cars. Improvements of BEV components, directed charging, second-life reuse of vehicle batteries, as well as vehicle-to-home and vehicle-to-grid applications will significantly reduce the environmental impacts of BEVs in the future.
Purpose: The well-to-wheel (WTW) methodology is widely used for policy support in road transport. It can be seen as a simplified life cycle assessment (LCA) that focuses on the energy consumption and CO2 emissions only for the fuel being consumed, ignoring other stages of a vehicle’s life cycle. WTW results are therefore different from LCA results. In order to close this gap, the authors propose a hybrid WTW+LCA methodology useful to assess the greenhouse gas (GHG) profiles of road vehicles.
Methods: The proposed method (hybrid WTW+LCA) keeps the main hypotheses of the WTW methodology, but integrates them with LCA data restricted to the global warming potential (GWP) occurring during the manufacturing of the battery pack. WTW data are used for the GHG intensity of the EU electric mix, after a consistency check with the main life cycle impact (LCI) sources available in literature.
Results and discussion: A numerical example is provided, comparing GHG emissions due to the use of a battery electric vehicle (BEV) with emissions from an internal combustion engine vehicle. This comparison is done both according to the WTW approach (namely the JEC WTW version 4) and the proposed hybrid WTW+LCA method. The GHG savings due to the use of BEVs calculated with the WTW-4 range between 44 and 56 %, while according to the hybrid method the savings are lower (31–46 %). This difference is due to the GWP which arises as a result of the manufacturing of the battery pack for the electric vehicles.
Conclusions: The WTW methodology used in policy support to quantify energy content and GHG emissions of fuels and powertrains can produce results closer to the LCA methodology by adopting a hybrid WTW+LCA approach. While evaluating GHG savings due to the use of BEVs, it is important that this method considers the GWP due to the manufacturing of the battery pack.
Carbon footprinting of universities worldwide: Part I — objective comparison by standardized metrics
(2021)
Background: Universities, as innovation drivers in science and technology worldwide, should be leading the Great Transformation towards a carbon–neutral society and many have indeed picked up the challenge. However, only a small number of universities worldwide are collecting and publishing their carbon footprints, and some of them have defined zero emission targets. Unfortunately, there is limited consistency between the reported carbon footprints (CFs) because of different analysis methods, different impact measures, and different target definitions by the respective universities.
Results: Comprehensive CF data of 20 universities from around the globe were collected and analysed. Essential factors contributing to the university CF were identified. For the first time, CF data from universities were not only compared. The CF data were also evaluated, partly corrected, and augmented by missing contributions, to improve the consistency and comparability. The CF performance of each university in the respective year is thus homogenized, and measured by means of two metrics: CO2e emissions per capita and per m2 of constructed area. Both metrics vary by one order of magnitude across the different universities in this study. However, we identified ten universities reaching a per capita carbon footprint of lower than or close to 1.0 Mt (metric tons) CO2e/person and year (normalized by the number of people associated with the university), independent from the university’s size. In addition to the aforementioned two metrics, we suggested a new metric expressing the economic efficiency in terms of the CF per $ expenditures and year. We next aggregated the results for all three impact measures, arriving at an overall carbon performance for the respective universities, which we found to be independent of geographical latitude. Instead the per capita measure correlates with the national per capita CFs, and it reaches on average 23% of the national impacts per capita. The three top performing universities are located in Switzerland, Chile, and Germany.
Conclusion: The usual reporting of CO2 emissions is categorized into Scopes 1–3 following the GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting Standard which makes comparison across universities challenging. In this study, we attempted to standardize the CF metrics, allowing us to objectively compare the CF at several universities. From this study, we observed that, almost 30 years after the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro (1992), the results are still limited. Only one zero emission university was identified, and hence, the transformation should speed up globally.
Universities, as innovation drivers in science and technology worldwide, should attempt to become carbon-neutral institutions and should lead this transformation. Many universities have picked up the challenge and quantified their carbon footprints; however, up-to-date quantification is limited to use-phase emissions. So far, data on embodied impacts of university campus infrastructure are missing, which prevents us from evaluating their life cycle costs. In this paper, we quantify the embodied impacts of two university campuses of very different sizes and climate zones: the Umwelt-Campus Birkenfeld (UCB), Germany, and the Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. We also quantify the effects of switching to full renewable energy supply on the carbon footprint of a university campus based on the example of UCB. The embodied impacts amount to 13.7 (UCB) and 26.2 (NTU) kg CO2e/m2•y, respectively, equivalent to 59.2% (UCB), and 29.8% (NTU), respectively, of the building lifecycle impacts. As a consequence, embodied impacts can be dominating; thus, they should be quantified and reported. When adding additional use-phase impacts caused by the universities on top of the building lifecycle impacts (e.g., mobility impacts), both institutions happen to exhibit very similar emissions with 124.5–126.3 kg CO2e/m2•y despite their different sizes, structures, and locations. Embodied impacts comprise 11.0–20.8% of the total impacts at the two universities. In conclusion, efficient reduction in university carbon footprints requires a holistic approach, considering all impacts caused on and by a campus including upstream effects.