CEDM-Supported Research on Electric Vehicle Life Cycle Costs and Benefits

1. CEDM-Supported Research on Electric Vehicle Life Cycle Costs and Benefits Jeremy J. Michalek and Costa Samaras

2. CMU Vehicle Electrification Group Associate Professor Jeremy MichalekEPP and Mechanical Eng.Vehicle design and life cycle implications Grace HeckmannMechanical EngineeringMarket demand for alternative vehicles John HelvestonEngineering & Public PolicyElectrified vehicles in China Assistant Professor Jay WhitacreEPP and Material Science and Eng.Battery technology Orkun KarabasogluMechanical EngineeringLife cycle implications of driving cycles Professor Chris HendricksonCivil & Environmental Eng.Transportation and life cycle assessment Assistant Professor Shawn LitsterMechanical Eng.Fuel cells Scott PetersonEngineering & Public PolicyLife cycle emissions, battery life, vehicle to grid Professor Francis McMichaelEPP and Civil & Environmental Eng.Battery technology, life cycle assessment Apurba SaktiEngineering & Public PolicyBattery design and cost modeling Elizabeth TrautMechanical EngineeringPlug-in vehicle design and charging infrastructure Associate Professor Illah NourbakhshRobotics InstituteElectric vehicle conversions Tugce YukselMechanical EngineeringBattery degradation and thermal management Gregg PodnarRobotics InstituteElectric vehicle conversions Allison WeisEngineering & Public PolicyPlug-in vehicles for wind power integration Dr. Constantine SamarasRAND Corporation (EPP Alum)Policy assessment

3. CEDM Activities and Outputs • Peer-Reviewed CEDM-supported research • Decision support to policymakers • Dissemination • Current activities

4. CEDM Activities and Outputs • Peer-Reviewed CEDM-supported research • Michalek, J.J., Chester, M., Jaramillo, P., Samaras, C., Shiau, C-S.,N., Lave, L.B. 2011. Valuation of Plug-in Vehicle Life Cycle Air Emissions and Oil Displacement Benefits. Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences of the United States of America. 108(40) 16554-16558. • Mashayekh, Y., Jaramillo, P., Samaras, C., Hendrickson, C.T., Blackhurst, M., MacLean, H.L., Matthews, H.S., 2012. Potentials for Sustainable Transportation in Cities to Alleviate Climate Change Impacts. Environmental Science and Technology. 46(5) 2529-2537. • Decision Support to Policymakers • Dissemination • Current activities

5. Paper #1: Plug-in Vehicle Benefits • Adding more batteries (all else being equal) means • Longer distance traveled on electricity before needing gasoline • More expensive • Heavier (less efficient) • More manufacturing emissionsand resource consumption

6. Value of Plug-in Vehicle Benefits Estimated value of life cycle air emissions externality costs (health damages, etc.) and oil premium costs • Benefit << $7500 fed tax credit • Damage reduction potential is small compared to cost • Trend does not match policy • Plug-in vehicles must be cheap to be a good value • Need R&D to reduce cost of batteries

7. Take Away In the near term, HEVs and PHEVs with small battery packs offer more benefits per dollar spent • Also more robust to uncertainty in cost and emissions • If we achieve cheap batteries, expensive gasoline, clean electricity, and long battery life, large battery packs may eventually be best

8. Paper #2: Local Policy • What options do local policymakers have for reducing GHGs from transportation? • Use alternative fuels • Reduce demand • Change zoning • Paper surveyed and summarized potentials around these areas • Found synergies among policies that are often analyzed independently

9. Potential Life Cycle GHGs from Vehicles

10. Dissemination • Policy results presented on Capitol Hill (Michalek and Samaras) • Congressional Budget Office • Congressional Research Service • Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee • Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee • Several offices in the House of Representatives • Secretary of Energy’s National Petroleum Council Study of Future Transportation Fuels (input: Michalek, Whitacre, and Samaras) • Policy brief to appear in Issues in Science and Technology(June) (Michalek, Chester and Samaras) • National Research Council committee service on U.S. Drive (Samaras)

11. Dissemination • Invited Talks • Cambridge University • Ford Motor Company • Argonne National Laboratory • Media • Washington Post • Bloomberg Businessweek • Greenwire

12. Current Activities Difference in GHG benefits of EVs under highway vs. NYC driving conditions • Plug-in vehicle benefits vary regionally, e.g.: • Under highway conditions, plug-in vehicles cost more and have few environmental benefits. • But under city conditions, plug-in vehicles could cut emissions in half while saving costs 20% • Regional factors: driving conditions, travel patterns, terrain, temperature, speed, acceleration, stop frequency, fuel prices, fleet mix, grid mix, charging infrastructure, air quality, etc.

13. Current Activities • Vehicle design and controller optimization • Assessing investment in charging infrastructure • EVs to help integrate renewable energy • Battery design and cost • Battery degradation and thermal management • Consumer perception and adoption

14. Current Activities • Preliminary research ideas for local decisionmakers: • Would replacement of streetlights with LED streetlights in EV adopting neighborhoods blunt some of the additional anticipated nighttime load by EVs in those neighborhood transformers? • Under various national transition scenarios to EVs, how much could residential energy efficiency improvements offset this additional load?

15. Acknowledgements • Carnegie Mellon • Climate Decision Making Center • Green Design Institute • Vehicle Electrification Group • Design Decisions Lab • Support • CMU Climate Decision Making Center, NSF SES Grant #0345798 • NSF CAREER Grant #0747911 • NSF MUSES Grant #0628084 • Ford Motor Company • Toyota Motor Corp • Teresa Heinz Scholars for Environmental Research Program • Steinbrenner Institute

16. Questions &Discussion jmichalek@cmu.edu csamaras@rand.org

17. ReferenceSlides

18. Vehicle Electrification

19. How Much Can Electrification Help? • Offset gasoline use • Reduces oil dependency • Change emissions profile • Fewer emissions associated with gasoline production and combustion • More emissions associated with battery and electricity production • We quantify: • Externality human health damages from life cycle air emissions • U.S. oil premium costs from gasoline consumption

20. 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

21. Base Case Life Cycle Emissions & Oil

22. Air Emissions & Oil Premium Costs • Damage reduction potential of plug-in vehicles • HEV & PHEV20 reduce damages vs. conventional vehicle • PHEV60 & BEV may increase or decrease damages

23. Life Cycle Costs • Base Case: Large battery packs are more costly over life. • Optimistic: Plug-in vehicles have potential to offer lower damages at lower cost if battery prices and grid emissions drop; Gasoline prices and battery life increase • Pessimistic: Plug-in vehicles could cost much more & cause more damage

24. Sensitivity Analysis • Life cycle air emissions externalities and oil premium

25. Sensitivity Analysis • Life cycle costs