Study Finds Greater Greenhouse Gas Reductions For EV Pickup Trucks Than Light-Duty Vehicles

[Administrator]

NEW STUDY FINDS GREATER GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS FOR PICKUP TRUCK ELECTRIFICATION THAN FOR OTHER LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES

Press Release Source: https://media.ford.com/content/ford...greenhouse-gas-reductions-for-pickup-tru.html

• A University of Michigan and Ford Motor Company study evaluates the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions relative to gasoline-powered pickup trucks as part of the decarbonization of the transportation industry.
• Sedan, SUV, and pickup truck battery-electric vehicles have approximately 64% lower cradle-to-grave life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than internal-combustion-engine vehicles on average across the United States.
• Replacing an internal-combustion-engine pickup with a battery-electric pickup results in a reduction of 74 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent over the lifetime of the vehicle on average.
• While battery-electric vehicles currently have larger greenhouse gas emissions in their manufacturing than internal-combustion-engine vehicles, due to battery production, this impact is offset by savings in their operation.

ANN ARBOR, Mich., March 4, 2022 —Major automotive manufacturers are ramping up the production of electric trucks as a key strategy to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of their fleets. Light-duty vehicles, including sedans, SUVs, and pickup trucks, are currently responsible for 58% of U.S. transportation sector emissions. Pickup trucks accounted for 14% of light-duty vehicle sales in the United States in 2020, and the market share of both pickups and SUVs has grown in recent years.

But what does pickup truck electrification mean for the decarbonization of the transportation industry?

University of Michigan and Ford Motor Company researchers addressed this question in a new study and evaluated the savings in greenhouse gas emissions relative to gasoline-powered pickup trucks.

Researchers found that light-duty, battery-electric vehicles have approximately 64% lower cradle-to-grave life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than internal-combustion-engine vehicles on average across the United States.

“This is an important study to inform and encourage climate action. Our research clearly shows substantial greenhouse gas emission reductions that can be achieved from transitioning to electrified powertrains across all vehicle classes,” said study senior author Greg Keoleian, a professor at the U-M School for Environment and Sustainability and director of the U-M Center for Sustainable Systems.

“This study can help us to understand the potential impact of electrification from an emissions-reduction perspective, particularly as we introduce new electric vehicles, and how we can continue to accelerate our progress towards carbon neutrality. We’re proud to partner with U-M in this critical work,” said Cynthia Williams, global director of sustainability, homologation and compliance at Ford.

In the study, researchers conducted a cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of pickup trucks and compared the implications of pickup truck electrification to those of sedan and SUV electrification.

With a focus on evaluating greenhouse gas emissions, researchers looked at three different model year 2020 powertrain options—internal-combustion-engine vehicles, hybrid-electric vehicles, and battery-electric vehicles—for midsize sedans, midsize SUVs, and full-size pickup trucks, accounting for differences in fuel economy, annual mileage, vehicle production, and vehicle lifetime across vehicle classes.

“This study expands upon previous studies that have focused on comparing battery-electric vehicle sedans to their internal-combustion-engine or hybrid counterparts,” said Keoleian. “We report emissions for vehicle production, use, and end-of-life stages on a per-mile basis and over the total vehicle lifetime. In addition, we analyzed the regional variation in emissions considering differences in electricity grid mixes and ambient temperatures, and we also explored the effects of the rate of grid decarbonization on emission reduction.”

The study offers key findings. Researchers, for instance, found that switching an internal-combustion-engine vehicle to a battery-electric vehicle results in greater total tonnage of emissions reductions as the vehicle size increases, due to the greater fuel consumption of larger vehicles. “Though the percentage savings is approximately the same across vehicle classes, on average replacing an internal-combustion-engine sedan with a battery-electric sedan saves 45 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, replacing an internal-combustion-engine SUV with a battery-electric SUV saves 56 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, and replacing an internal-combustion-engine pickup with a battery-electric pickup saves 74 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent over the lifetime of the vehicles,” said study first author and Center for Sustainable Systems Research Specialist Max Woody.

The researchers also found that battery-electric vehicles have larger greenhouse gas emissions in their manufacturing than internal-combustion-engine vehicles, due to battery production, but this impact is offset by savings in their operation. For battery-electric vehicles and internal-combustion-engine vehicles, the breakeven time is 1.2 to 1.3 years for sedans, 1.4 to 1.6 years for SUVs, and 1.3 years for pickup trucks, based on the average U.S. grid and vehicle miles traveled.

Vehicle emissions vary across the country, as different temperatures and different drive cycles affect a vehicle’s fuel economy. For electric vehicles, the emissions intensity of the local electricity grid is also an important factor. The study developed maps to show the lifetime grams of carbon dioxide equivalent/mile for each powertrain (internal-combustion-engine vehicles, hybrid vehicles, and battery-electric vehicles) and vehicle type (sedan, SUV, and pickup truck) by county across the United States. Researchers found that concerns about battery-electric vehicles having higher emissions than internal-combustion-engine vehicles or hybrids are largely unfounded, as battery-electric vehicles outperform hybrids in 95% to 96% of counties, while battery-electric vehicles outperform internal-combustion-engine vehicles in 98% to 99% of counties, even assuming only modest progress towards grid decarbonization.

Charging strategies can further reduce battery-electric vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. The study found that charging during the hours of the day with the lowest grid emissions intensity can reduce emissions by 11% on average. “Deployment of electric vehicles and expansion of renewable energy resources like solar and wind should be done at the same time; the benefit of each is increased by the development of the other,” said Woody.

The study, “The role of pickup truck electrification in the decarbonization of light-duty vehicles,” was published online March 1 in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

The other authors of the study are Parth Vaishnav of the U-M School for Environment and Sustainability and Center for Sustainable Systems and Robert De Kleine, Hyung Chul Kim, James E. Anderson, and Timothy J. Wallington of Ford Motor Company’s Research and Innovation Center.

This study was supported by Ford Motor Company through a Ford-University of Michigan Alliance Project Award.

Sponsored

 

[LaunchGreen]

Take it with a grain of salt:

" This study was supported by Ford Motor Company through a Ford-University of Michigan Alliance Project Award. "

 

[Lobstahz]

Take it with a grain of salt:

" This study was supported by Ford Motor Company through a Ford-University of Michigan Alliance Project Award. "

I read this completely the opposite. That a large legacy OEM, that makes a LOT of money from selling ICE vehicles is touting these findings is HUGE for the EV movement and general carbon emission reduction.

I find this extremely encouraging. These findings have been known for a while, but every additional study coming to the same conclusion helps the cause

 

[rodhx]

let’s see….electrifying big heavy things that have big motors and terrible fuel mileage gives the biggest benefit. Who woulda thought? ? The things researchers somehow get paid for never ceases to amaze.

 

[LaunchGreen]

I read this completely the opposite. That a large legacy OEM, that makes a LOT of money from selling ICE vehicles is touting these findings is HUGE for the EV movement and general carbon emission reduction.

I find this extremely encouraging. These findings have been known for a while, but every additional study coming to the same conclusion helps the cause

Not sure if you’re aware, but it’s a company launching the first mainstream electric truck shortly…

 

[Gator42]

Vehicle cycle emissions include the production of all vehicle components (body, powertrain, transmission, chassis, traction motor, generator, electronic controller), fluids used over the lifetime of the vehicle (e.g. 39 oil changes and 19 windshield fluid refills), vehicle batteries (lead-acid batteries in all three powertrains, and Li-ion traction batteries in the HEVs and BEVs),

The sticky part of these types of studies: the mining of battery elements is a heavily carbon intensive endeavor. Does 'production' in reference to batteries include the mining of raw materials or just battery manufacture? Doesn't say...

 

[nc10]

The sticky part of these types of studies: the mining of battery elements is a heavily carbon intensive endeavor. Does 'production' in reference to batteries include the mining of raw materials or just battery manufacture? Doesn't say...

Yes, it does. The original paper says the used the “Greet 2021” model from Argonne Labs. From the paper: “To calculate the materials, manufacturing, and end-of-life phase emissions, we use the GREET 2021 model [67, 68], developed by Argonne National Laboratory.”

I only looked up the section about Li, somewhat familiar with that technology. A description of the model (100+ pages of description) mentions the following:

”We updated lithium pathways within GREET to reflect a recent publication from the Argonne research team. The effort details the production of lithium from brine-based resources in Chile and from ore-based resources in Australia. The processes considered extend to the production of Li2CO3 and LiOH, thereby capturing the processes that precede the use of lithium with battery cathode materials. The numerical data within GREET are consistent with that in the publication by Kelly, et al. (2021).”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjJrt3i4q_2AhUFh-AKHVGHDtUQFnoECAoQAQ&url=https://greet.es.anl.gov/files/greet-2021-summary&usg=AOvVaw2OWT9KTSAQMV-oJ8IWK8hL

The method looks detailed and rigorous. But requires lots of inputs. Factor in these inputs up and down the line, I would judge the differences between trucks, suv’s etc not to be very significant, and could change with different inputs. But it does really appear that it doesn’t take using ev’s very long to offset the emissions associated with the manufacturing.

 

[nc10]

Not sure if you’re aware, but it’s a company launching the first mainstream electric truck shortly…

I'm thinking Ford can't exist without ICE pickup truck profits for a few years. They'll need every $ of ICE pickup truck profit they earn to transition to other technologies. Seems hard to imagine they would falsely give their customers reason to deselect ICE pickup trucks any faster than what is already happening.

https://www.freep.com/story/money/c...uper-duty-pickups-economic-impact/3246206001/

 

[Jehorton]

What about after grave life? What happens to batteries then? Do they sit and rot somewhere?

 

[nc10]

What about after grave life? What happens to batteries then? Do they sit and rot somewhere?

I don't have any more info than what you've probably read. So short answer: To be determined.

You're probably aware, likely many EV batteries will find second life in stationary energy storage, the value of which is not included in the EV study above. Lots of recycle/recovery research ongoing. From what I've read, Redwood Matls is one of the leaders in this area. https://www.redwoodmaterials.com/services

 

[Jehorton]

I don't have any more info than what you've probably read. So short answer: To be determined.

You're probably aware, likely many EV batteries will find second life in stationary energy storage, the value of which is not included in the EV study above. Lots of recycle/recovery research ongoing. From what I've read, Redwood Matls is one of the leaders in this area. https://www.redwoodmaterials.com/services

I just have this fear that everyone here is so overwhelmed with new technology and on the surface it seems we are saving the world, only to find the difference isn’t as big. I understand it’s the beginning and emissions will get better but afterlife is what I worry about.

 

[nc10]

I just have this fear that everyone here is so overwhelmed with new technology and on the surface it seems we are saving the world, only to find the difference isn’t as big. I understand it’s the beginning and emissions will get better but afterlife is what I worry about.

The difference looks big, I hope most recognize a transition to EV's is not nearly enough to achieve greenhouse gas emission goals.

Yeah, also worry about attention to detail, esp those that don't affect us immediately and personally......

 

[Billyk24]

Yes, it does. The original paper says the used the “Greet 2021” model from Argonne Labs. From the paper: “To calculate the materials, manufacturing, and end-of-life phase emissions, we use the GREET 2021 model [67, 68], developed by Argonne National Laboratory.”

I only looked up the section about Li, somewhat familiar with that technology. A description of the model (100+ pages of description) mentions the following:

”We updated lithium pathways within GREET to reflect a recent publication from the Argonne research team. The effort details the production of lithium from brine-based resources in Chile and from ore-based resources in Australia. The processes considered extend to the production of Li2CO3 and LiOH, thereby capturing the processes that precede the use of lithium with battery cathode materials. The numerical data within GREET are consistent with that in the publication by Kelly, et al. (2021).”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjJrt3i4q_2AhUFh-AKHVGHDtUQFnoECAoQAQ&url=https://greet.es.anl.gov/files/greet-2021-summary&usg=AOvVaw2OWT9KTSAQMV-oJ8IWK8hL

The method looks detailed and rigorous. But requires lots of inputs. Factor in these inputs up and down the line, I would judge the differences between trucks, suv’s etc not to be very significant, and could change with different inputs. But it does really appear that it doesn’t take using ev’s very long to offset the emissions associated with the manufacturing.

Maybe a stupid question here; mining in Chile and Australia? Then did the study also include the fossil fuel use to "ship" to this country?

 

[nc10]

Maybe a stupid question here; mining in Chile and Australia? Then did the study also include the fossil fuel use to "ship" to this country?

Yes, . . Some Lithium processing goes in in china and other places, likewise battery production More involved that just shipping Li to here, other shipping also (Looks like they do the distribution/shipping calcs for oil, gas, steel, etc etc but didn't dig into it much)

Looking at the references for the GREET 21 method, they relied on this article for the lithium recovery to battery production calculations.

Energy, greenhouse gas, and water life cycle analysis of lithium carbonate and lithium hydroxide monohydrate from brine and ore resources and their use in lithium ion battery cathodes and lithium ion batteries


" Argonne National Laboratory worked with Sociedad Quimica y Minera S.A. (SQM), a global leader in lithium production, to conduct a process-based life cycle analysis (LCA) for Li2CO3 and LiOH•H2O. A life cycle analysis uses detailed life cycle inventory (LCI) data: a collection of the detailed input and output flows for a product along its supply chain, including raw materials, energy, and water, and process emissions. An LCA uses the LCI data to evaluate the environmental effects that the product has throughout its supply chain and all production stages: resource extraction and processing, manufacturing, distribution, use, recycling, and disposal. . "

SQM recovers Lithium from brine in Chile. Lithium also comes from hard rock/ore mines in western Australia, the paper also mentions the following, again specifically mentioning shipping as a factor.

The LCI data for ore-based operations are based on informed assumptions for production in western Australia, in which spodumene ore would be extracted, locally concentrated, and then transported to coastal western Australia for worldwide shipping. We augment that data with data from an environmental impact assessment report for a cathode plant in China by Tianqi Lithium, a major cathode producer, for production of Li2CO3 and LiOH•H2O from spodumene ore

More mentions on whats included in the article, but you get the idea....

 

[Gator42]

Yes, it does. The original paper says the used the “Greet 2021” model from Argonne Labs. From the paper: “To calculate the materials, manufacturing, and end-of-life phase emissions, we use the GREET 2021 model [67, 68], developed by Argonne National Laboratory.”

I only looked up the section about Li, somewhat familiar with that technology. A description of the model (100+ pages of description) mentions the following:

”We updated lithium pathways within GREET to reflect a recent publication from the Argonne research team. The effort details the production of lithium from brine-based resources in Chile and from ore-based resources in Australia. The processes considered extend to the production of Li2CO3 and LiOH, thereby capturing the processes that precede the use of lithium with battery cathode materials. The numerical data within GREET are consistent with that in the publication by Kelly, et al. (2021).”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjJrt3i4q_2AhUFh-AKHVGHDtUQFnoECAoQAQ&url=https://greet.es.anl.gov/files/greet-2021-summary&usg=AOvVaw2OWT9KTSAQMV-oJ8IWK8hL

The method looks detailed and rigorous. But requires lots of inputs. Factor in these inputs up and down the line, I would judge the differences between trucks, suv’s etc not to be very significant, and could change with different inputs. But it does really appear that it doesn’t take using ev’s very long to offset the emissions associated with the manufacturing.

Yes, it does. The original paper says the used the “Greet 2021” model from Argonne Labs. From the paper: “To calculate the materials, manufacturing, and end-of-life phase emissions, we use the GREET 2021 model [67, 68], developed by Argonne National Laboratory.”

I only looked up the section about Li, somewhat familiar with that technology. A description of the model (100+ pages of description) mentions the following:

”We updated lithium pathways within GREET to reflect a recent publication from the Argonne research team. The effort details the production of lithium from brine-based resources in Chile and from ore-based resources in Australia. The processes considered extend to the production of Li2CO3 and LiOH, thereby capturing the processes that precede the use of lithium with battery cathode materials. The numerical data within GREET are consistent with that in the publication by Kelly, et al. (2021).”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjJrt3i4q_2AhUFh-AKHVGHDtUQFnoECAoQAQ&url=https://greet.es.anl.gov/files/greet-2021-summary&usg=AOvVaw2OWT9KTSAQMV-oJ8IWK8hL

The method looks detailed and rigorous. But requires lots of inputs. Factor in these inputs up and down the line, I would judge the differences between trucks, suv’s etc not to be very significant, and could change with different inputs. But it does really appear that it doesn’t take using ev’s very long to offset the emissions associated with the manufacturing.

Other studies are also detailed and rigorous and have arrived at different conclusions. It's good to have data points...

Sponsored