Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bi - Integrated Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Cost Model For Comparing Plug in - J of Industrial Ecology - 2016
Bi - Integrated Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Cost Model For Comparing Plug in - J of Industrial Ecology - 2016
Keywords:
Summary
electric vehicles
industrial ecology An integrated life cycle assessment and life cycle cost (LCC) model was developed to
life cycle cost compare the life cycle performance of plug-in charging versus wireless charging for an
vehicle lightweighting electric bus system. The model was based on a bus system simulation using existing transit
mass transit bus routes in the Ann Arbor–Ypsilanti metro area in Michigan. The objective is to evaluate
wireless charging
the LCCs for an all-electric bus system utilizing either plug-in or wireless charging and also
compare these costs to both conventional pure diesel and hybrid bus systems. Despite
Supporting information is available
a higher initial infrastructure investment for off-board wireless chargers deployed across
on the JIE Web site the service region, the wireless charging bus system has the lowest LCC of US$0.99
per bus-kilometer among the four systems and has the potential to reduce use-phase
carbon emissions attributable to the lightweighting benefits of on-board battery downsizing
compared to plug-in charging. Further uncertainty analysis and sensitivity analysis indicate
that the unit price of battery pack and day or night electricity price are key parameters
in differentiating the LCCs between plug-in and wireless charging. Additionally, scenario
analyses on battery recycling, carbon emission pricing, and discount rates were conducted
to further analyze and compare their respective life cycle performance.
Address correspondence to: Gregory A. Keoleian, Center for Sustainable Systems, School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, 440 Church Street,
Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. Email: gregak@umich.edu. Web: http://css.snre.umich.edu/
especially applicable to fixed-route vehicles, such as transit for the LCCA. An advantage of this integrated LCA-LCC
buses. Wireless charging is categorized as stationary wireless model is the ability to conduct energy, GHG emissions, and
charging and dynamic wireless charging (charging while cost analyses simultaneously. For example, this model can be
vehicles are in motion). In this study, wireless charging refers used to evaluate the magnitude of the environmental costs of
specifically to stationary wireless charging, which means that carbon emissions and compare them with conventional LCCs.
wireless chargers are only deployed at some bus stations and a In this study, a detailed cost analysis was conducted to
parking lot for buses to charge when they drop off and pick up compare the cumulative costs and total costs per bus-kilometer
passengers or park overnight. Because of the frequent charging (km) between the plug-in and wireless bus systems. The results
opportunities available during bus operation, it is feasible to were also contrasted against a conventional pure diesel bus
carry a smaller on-board battery and lightweight the vehicle. fleet and a diesel hybrid bus fleet for reference. Uncertainties
This mass reduction of the bus can improve fuel economy associated with the results were evaluated by a Monte Carlo
and has important implications for reducing life cycle energy simulation. The relative importance of the key parameters
consumption, GHG emissions, and costs. influencing the LCCs of plug-in and wireless charging systems
Despite the convenience of wireless charging and its po- was identified by a sensitivity analysis. Finally, scenario analyses
tential economic benefits from battery downsizing and vehicle of EoL battery recycling, carbon emission costs, and different
lightweighting, there are significant costs related to initial discount rates were conducted. This article demonstrates
infrastructure investment, including the procurement and the trade-offs between plug-in and wireless charging and
installation of wireless chargers. Compared to the smaller scale supplements current research on wireless charging technology
of plug-in charging infrastructure, which is usually confined through a detailed LCA-LCC evaluation.
to a parking lot or facility, wireless charging infrastructure
needs to be distributed across the entire bus service region to
support a wirelessly charged transit bus fleet. Thus, it is useful Method
to quantify the trade-offs of infrastructure-related costs and An integrated LCA-LCC model was developed to provide
battery-associated savings to explore the potential advantages a comprehensive comparative assessment of plug-in charging
of wireless charging over plug-in charging. and wireless charging with application for an electric bus fleet.
Life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) is a useful tool to provide a The model framework is shown in figure 1, and the LCA and
holistic evaluation of costs from capital investment to use-phase LCC models are described in the sections below.
operation and, finally, to the end of life (EoL) (Kendall et al.
2008). LCCA is widely used by transit agencies to evaluate cost
The Life Cycle Assessment Model and Bus System
benefits of fleet procurement plans. The U.S. Federal Transit
Simulation
Administration conducted an LCCA to compare costs of a
conventional diesel bus fleet, hybrid bus fleet, and compressed The LCA model was constructed to simulate a bus fleet of
natural gas bus fleet (Clark et al. 2007). The Ann Arbor 67 buses. The bus system in Ann Arbor–Ypsilanti metro area in
Area Transportation Authority (AAATA) also commissioned Michigan, called TheRide, was used as a basis for the bus system
an LCCA comparing a conventional diesel bus fleet with a simulation (AAATA 2014a). The main characteristics of this
diesel hybrid bus fleet (AAATA 2014b). Although economic bus system, including fleet lifetime travel distance, dwell time at
analysis of wireless charging has been reported in the literature bus stops, distribution of routes, and bus stops, were used as pa-
(Choi et al. 2014), analysis of the trade-offs of wireless charging rameters for the simulation. The rationale of selecting this bus
systems is limited, and a comprehensive LCCA comparing system as a case study is that it is familiar to the modelers and
plug-in charging versus wireless charging bus fleet has not been route data were readily accessible. It is a typical multiroute sys-
established. tem serving two major municipalities, Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti,
An integrated life cycle assessment and life cycle cost and this simulation can be generalized and extended to other
(LCA-LCC) model (Kendall et al. 2008; Norris 2001) bus systems by tuning those characteristic parameters for a bus
was developed to provide a comprehensive assessment and system. Bus systems with greater overlapping routes would be
comparison of plug-in charging and wireless charging for an expected to require fewer total number of charging stations and
all-electric bus system. Such a comprehensive LCA-LCC would help increase the utilization of each charging station, and
model framework for evaluating the sustainability performance bus systems with longer dwell time at charging stations would
of this emerging wireless charging technology has not yet help further downsize the onboard battery. The bus service life
been established in the literature. This current study builds was assumed to be 12 years (Clark et al. 2007), and, on aver-
upon a previously conducted LCA comparing global warming age, each bus traveled 716,932 km during that period (Bi et al.
impact and cumulative energy demand for the plug-in and 2015). The buses in this fleet are all assumed to be pure electric
wireless charging systems (Bi et al. 2015). The LCA model buses for which two charging scenarios were compared: plug-in
was developed based on a simulation of an existing transit charging and wireless charging. Major differences between the
bus system serving the Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti metro area two bus systems using either charging method are highlighted,
in Michigan. Parameters and intermediate results from the including chargers, batteries, and use-phase energy consump-
LCA and bus system simulation were used as input parameters tion. Sixty-seven plug-in chargers were assumed to be located
Figure 1 Integrated life cycle assessment and life cycle cost (LCA-LCC) model for comparative assessment of plug-in versus wireless
charging systems with key parameters highlighted. The production of electric buses (excluding the batteries), use-phase maintenance, and
battery recycling are only relevant to the LCC model.
at a parking lot for all-electric buses to charge overnight only, the LCA model based on fleet travel distance. Using the U.S.
that is, no daytime charging. For the wireless charging scenario, annual carbon dioxide (CO2 ) total output emission rate (0.559
67 on-board wireless chargers (on-WCs) were installed on the kg CO2 /kWh) from the Emissions & Generation Resource
buses and 428 off-board wireless chargers (off-WCs) were as- Integrated Database (eGRID) database (US EPA 2014), the
sumed to be deployed across the bus service region and located CO2 emissions in the use phase were calculated and then used
at transit centers, key downtown bus stops, some suburban bus for the scenario analysis of carbon emission costs in the LCC
stops, and a parking lot for buses to charge both day and night. model.
Major input parameters used in the LCA model are listed in The time horizon for the LCC model is 24 years, that is,
table 1. Further details on the parameters and assumptions of twice the life of a bus and the same as the techno-economic
the bus system simulation can be found in the Supporting In- life of the charging infrastructure. In addition to plug-in
formation available on the Journal’s website. and wireless charging all-electric bus systems, conventional
diesel bus and diesel hybrid bus systems were also included
in the LCC model so that the results can be contrasted for
The Life Cycle Cost Model
reference. Common cost parameters shared by the four systems
Results from the LCA model were used as input parameters are summarized in table 2 and specific cost parameters for
in the LCC model. The LCA model quantified the battery each system are listed in table 3 and classified as capital and
sizes for plug-in buses and wireless buses. A plug-in battery operation costs. The LCC model also considered the inflation
was assumed to be 3,525 kilograms (kg) (458 kilowatt-hours or deflation of products and the discount rate.
[kWh]) with a battery-to-wheel energy consumption rate of
1.46 kWh/km. A wireless battery size can be downsized to 948 Capital Costs
to 1,546 kg (123 to 201 kWh) with a battery-to-wheel energy Capital costs include bus and battery procurement, charger
consumption rate of 1.36 to 1.38 kWh/km, depending on the procurement, and installation of chargers. Batteries were
distance of the route and available charging time (Bi et al. assumed to be replaced every 8 years, and buses (excluding
2015). Use-phase energy consumption was also computed in the batteries) were assumed to be replaced every 12 years
Table 2 General cost parameters for the life cycle cost analysis
Unit price of battery pack 500 $/kWh (Sakti et al. 2015; Fabbri et al. 2013; Hensley et al. 2012)
Electricity rate in Michigan (day & night) 0.1137 $/kWh (US EIA 2014c)
Diesel price 3.14 $/gal (AAATA 2014b)
Fuel economy of a conventional diesel bus 4.3 miles/gal (AAATA 2014b)
Fuel economy of a hybrid bus 5.3 miles/gal (AAATA 2014b)
Discount rate (20-year, nominal) 3.6% percent (US OMB 2013)
Annual inflation rate of lithium-ion battery –9% percent (Dinger et al. 2014; Grosjean et al. 2012; Hensley et al. 2012)
Annual inflation rate of electricity rate 2% percent (U.S. EIA 2014a, 2014b)
Annual inflation rate of diesel 5.84% percent (U.S. EIA 2014a, 2014b)
(Clark et al. 2007; Bi et al. 2015). Batteries costs were and its installation costs, including pavement removal and
calculated from multiplying battery unit price ($/kWh)1 by restoration, were based on empirical and expert estimates (Mi
the battery capacities (kWh). The battery capacities were 2014), and further sensitivity analysis was conducted on these
quantified so that they can meet daily range requirements and parameters.
have enough capacity buffer to accommodate future capacity
degradation. Details of battery sizing can be found in the Operation Costs
LCA model (Bi et al. 2015). A 60-kilowatt (kW) wireless Operation costs include energy costs and maintenance
charger is comprised of an on-board portion (on-WC) and an costs. Operation costs were assumed to be paid at the end
off-board portion (off-WC) that have an identical unit price of of each year. Other use-phase costs, including driver wages
US$5,000 each. The market price for a 60-kW wireless charger and vehicle insurance/warranty, were assumed to be the same
Name Unit Plug-in References Wireless References Conventional References Hybrid References
R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
Capital costs
Operation costs
15309290, 2017, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.12419 by Universitatsbibliothek Stuttgart, Wiley Online Library on [13/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
15309290, 2017, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jiec.12419 by Universitatsbibliothek Stuttgart, Wiley Online Library on [13/06/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
R E S E A R C H A N D A N A LY S I S
for all four bus systems, thus not included in the comparison. Carbon Emission Costs
Federal subsidies for purchasing buses by municipalities were Another scenario analysis examined carbon emission costs.
not considered. The additional operation costs incurred by a In the base case, no carbon costs were included. In the scenario
decrease in battery charge/discharge efficiency resulting from analysis, however, the carbon emissions from diesel combustion
battery degradation were assumed to be the same for both or electricity generation during the use phase were assumed to
plug-in and wireless systems, but the methods can be refined to be charged at a carbon price ranging from 0 to 100 $/tonnes (t)
incorporate a specific battery efficiency and degradation profile CO2 ,2 based on the social cost of carbon (US EPA
for wireless charging. Additionally, although regenerative 2013).
braking was included in terms of quantifying energy perfor-
mance of the electrified buses in this study, its potential benefit
of reducing the wear of the brake pad and cutting the main- Results and Discussion
tenance costs of brake components (Ye et al. 2008) was not
Cumulative and Total Costs
included.
For plug-in and wireless systems, use-phase electricity E Model results are reported as cumulative costs on a year-to-
(kWh) was calculated based on the battery-to-wheel energy year basis and also cost per bus-km basis. Figure 2 shows the
consumption rate k (kWh/km), charging efficiency ηc (%), cumulative costs of plug-in all-electric, wireless all-electric,
battery charge/discharge efficiency ηb (%), and fleet travel conventional pure diesel, and hybrid bus systems. At the
distance D (km), as shown in equation (1). Similarly, for beginning of the time horizon (year 0), the plug-in system has
conventional pure diesel and hybrid buses, diesel consumption the highest capital cost and conventional pure diesel system has
was calculated from dividing fleet travel distance by fuel the lowest capital cost. At the end of the 24th year, the hybrid
economy. system has the highest costs over the period with a final life
cycle cost of US$125.6 million. The wireless system is found
E = k × D/ηb /ηc (1)
to be the lowest with a final life cycle cost of US$94.7 million.
Annual maintenance costs are comprised of two parts: Plug-in system has a final life cycle cost of US$102.2 million,
maintenance of facilities and infrastructure and maintenance which is 8% higher than the wireless system. The conventional
of vehicle propulsion or powertrain systems. As shown in pure diesel system becomes the second highest with a final
table 3, the maintenance costs of conventional pure diesel and life cycle cost of US$115.6 million. Conventional and hybrid
hybrid buses were obtained and calculated from the literature. buses are powered solely by diesel, and plug-in or wireless buses
Because of lack of specific data on the maintenance costs are powered solely by electricity. The alternative powertrains
of plug-in charging and wireless charging, three assumptions have better energy efficiencies compared to conventional
were made: (1) The propulsion maintenance costs of plug-in powertrains (Chan 2007). Thus, the differences in fuel type
and wireless charging electric buses were assumed to be the and fuel economy result in different fueling cost increases
same as the hybrid buses ($352,638/fleet/year); (2) the annual per year, reflected in the slopes of the curves. At the 8th
maintenance cost of 428 off-board wireless chargers (Bi et al. and 16th years, there are scheduled battery replacements for
2015) deployed across the bus service area is around 5% of their all-electric and hybrid buses, and at the 12th year, there is a bus
total procurement cost; and (3) a wireless charger will have the replacement for all types of buses (except the batteries). The
same rate of degradation as a plug-in charger during operation. plug-in battery has around 2.5 times the capacity of the wireless
The assumptions on the maintenance costs of plug-in and battery, thus it costs more to replace a plug-in battery. The
wireless chargers were further examined in the sensitivity battery replacement plays an important role in determining
analysis. the difference between the plug-in system and the wireless
system.
End-of-Life Battery Salvage Value A detailed breakdown of the total life cycle costs per bus-km
For the base case, the battery recycling was not considered, of the four systems is shown in figure 3. The hybrid, conven-
but it was considered in a scenario analysis. The threshold tional, plug-in, and wireless systems cost US$1.31, US$1.20,
for battery retirement is usually a 20% loss of battery capacity US$1.06, and US$0.99 per bus-km, respectively. Trade-offs be-
(Guena and Leblanc 2006; Xu 2013), that is, 80% of the tween plug-in and wireless systems are compared directly against
nameplate capacity is still usable. Given the large capacity each other. One major advantage of wireless charging is the
of a plug-in or wireless battery, it is meaningful to reuse the lower battery costs, including initial procurement and use-phase
battery for other energy storage purposes. The scenario analysis replacements. Wireless batteries cost 60% less than plug-in
was based on a battery salvage value varying from $0 to $400 batteries, but there are increased infrastructure costs for wireless
per kWh of nameplate capacity. A 20% loss of battery usable charging, including procurement and installation of chargers.
capacity at EoL is assumed to reduce the original battery unit The infrastructure costs only 0.7 cent per bus-km for plug-in
price ($500/kWh) by 20%, thus the upper limit of battery charging, but increases to 7 cents per bus-km for wireless charg-
salvage value is $400 per kWh of nameplate capacity. The ing. In terms of use-phase electricity consumption, the two sys-
battery recycling price was assumed to have the same annual tems have almost the same electricity costs. The reason is that,
inflation rate as the battery unit price (–9.00%). though there is a lightweighting benefit of battery-to-wheel
$140
$100
$80
$60
Plug-in system
$40
Wireless system
Conventional system
$20
Hybrid system
$0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Year
Figure 2 Cumulative costs of plug-in all-electric, wireless all-electric, conventional pure diesel, and diesel hybrid bus systems.
$1.40
$1.31
$1.20
$1.20
$1.06
2014 US $/bus-km
$0.99
$1.00
$0.80
$0.60
$0.40
$0.20
$0.00
Plug-in Wireless Conventional Hybrid
Maintenance - propulsion $0.058 $0.058 $0.060 $0.058
Maintenance - facility &
$0.017 $0.017 $0.019 $0.016
infrastructure
Diesel - - $0.599 $0.486
Electricity (night) $0.170 $0.071 - -
Electricity (day) - $0.098 - -
Charger installation $0.001 $0.045 - -
Offboard wireless chargers - $0.022 - -
Onboard wireless chargers - $0.003 - -
Plug-in chargers $0.006 - - -
Battery packs $0.236 $0.094 - $0.036
Buses (w/o batteries) $0.577 $0.577 $0.525 $0.710
Total $1.06 $0.99 $1.20 $1.31
Figure 3 Total costs per bus-km of plug-in all-electric, wireless all-electric, conventional pure diesel, and diesel hybrid bus systems.
km = kilometer.
center, inflation rate of lithium-ion battery, lightweighting A carbon emission price, ranging from US$0 to US$100 per
correlation, and procurement of on-board wireless charger. tonne of CO2 , was placed on the use-phase carbon emissions
of the four systems, either from the combustion of diesel or
the generation of electricity, as shown in figure 5b. From
Scenario Analyses
US$0 to US$100/t CO2 , the cost per bus-km increases by
Three scenario analyses were conducted to evaluate the 8.0% (US$0.10) for the hybrid system, 10.7% (US$0.13) for
(1) potential benefits of recycling the large on-board batteries the conventional pure diesel system, 7.9% (US$0.08) for the
for electric buses, (2) external cost of carbon emissions, and plug-in system, and 8.5% (US$0.08) for the wireless system.
(3) uncertainty in discount rate, and results are shown in figure The difference between the conventional and hybrid systems
5. The plug-in charged bus has a battery with a capacity of is mainly attributable to the difference in fuel economies. The
458 kWh, and the wireless bus has a battery with a capacity reason for the same price increases of plug-in and wireless
of 123 to 201 kWh. These batteries have a potential of being systems is that the lightweighting benefit is offset by lower
recycled after retirement. As shown in figure 5a, a battery wireless charging efficiency.
salvage value was applied, with US$0 per nameplate kWh as The choice of discount rate is somewhat subjective in
the most pessimistic scenario and US$400 per nameplate kWh LCCA, thus a scenario analysis using different discount rates
as the most optimistic scenario. When a battery is recycled at a was conducted, as shown in figure 5c. At a high discount rate
price of US$400 per nameplate kWh, the wireless and plug-in of 10%, the difference among the four systems is much smaller
charging systems will have very similar costs per bus-km. than that at a discount rate of 0%. The conventional system is
Figure 4 Sensitivity analysis. Each input parameter is changed independently from values of “low; base; high” as shown beside each
parameter’s name. The base case (7.4%) is shown as the red line.
$1.25 $1.50
Plug-in Wireless
Conventional Hybrid
$1.20 $1.40
2014 US $/bus-km
2014 US $/bus-km
$1.15
Plug-in Wireless Conventional $1.30
$1.10
$1.20
$1.05
$1.10
$1.00
$0.95 $1.00
$0.90 $0.90
0 100 200 300 400 0 20 40 60 80 100
Battery salvage value
Carbon price (2014 US $/t CO2)
(2014 US $/kWh of nameplate capacity)
(a) (b)
$2.00
$1.80
$1.60
2014 US $/bus-km
$1.40
$1.20
$1.00
$0.80
$0.60
$0.20
$0.00
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10%
Discount rate
(c)
Figure 5 Scenario analyses: (a) end-of-life battery recycling; (b) carbon costs; and (c) discount rate.
benefits of downsizing the battery and reducing the battery and Notes
use-phase electricity costs. In contrast, the wireless charging
1. Throughout the article and Supporting Information on the Web,
infrastructure brings additional costs of charger procurement all dollar values presented are in U.S. dollars.
and installation. Though this study indicates that a wireless 2. Throughout the article and Supporting Information on the Web,
charging system has a lower overall LCC compared to a “t” refers to metric tons.
plug-in charging system, there is considerable uncertainty
associated with this finding. The difference in LCCs between
plug-in charging and wireless charging is largely dependent References
on the battery unit price, wireless charging efficiency, and
procurement, installation, and maintenance costs of wireless AAATA (Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority). 2014a. Route
schedules and maps (winter 2014, effective January 26, 2014–May
chargers. If any of these parameters changes significantly in the
3, 2014). Ann Arbor, MI, USA: AAATA.
future, it will greatly affect the relative cost differences between
AAATA (Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority). 2014b. Issue
the two charging methods. For example, if the wireless charging analysis: Hybrid and low emission conventional bus technologies. Ann
efficiency is improved, it will further help reduce the LCC of Arbor, MI, USA: AAATA.
the wireless charging bus system. Also, after initial commer- Bi, Z., L. Song, R. De Kleine, C. Mi, and G. A. Keoleian. 2015. Plug-
cialization, the mass production and economy of scale benefits in vs. wireless charging: Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas
are expected to decrease wireless charger costs as the market emissions for an electric bus system. Applied Energy 146: 11–19.
matures. Budhia, M., J. T. Boys, G. A. Covic, and C. Y. Huang. 2013. Develop-
Future studies can incorporate and extend a recently estab- ment of a single-sided flux magnetic coupler for electric vehicle
lished optimization method (Jang et al. 2015) to screen the best IPT charging systems. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics
candidate bus stops for installation of charging infrastructure 60(1): 318–328.
BYD Auto Company. 2013. 2013 BYD 40-ft electric bus specs.
and quantify the optimal battery sizes to minimize LCC of
www.byd.com/na/auto/ElectricBus.html. Accessed May 2014.
a wireless charging bus system. The established optimization
Chan, C. C. 2007. The state of the art of electric, hybrid, and fuel cell
study was based on a single route in Korea to allocate the vehicles. Proceedings of the IEEE 95(4): 704–718.
charging infrastructure for the least total cost of battery and Choi, S. Y., B. W. Gu, S. Y. Jeong, and C. T. Rim. 2014. Advances
infrastructure only. To extend the method, the optimization in wireless power transfer systems for roadway-powered electric
algorithm needs to consider the characteristics of a network vehicles. IEEE Journal of Emerging and Selected Topics in Power
of different bus routes, such as the sharing of a single charging Electronics 3(1): 18–36.
station by multiple routes. The utilization of a charging station Clark, N. N., F. Zhen, W. S. Wayne, and D. W. Lyons. 2007. Transit
may also affect the life and maintenance cost of the charging bus life cycle cost and year 2007 emissions estimation. Washington,
infrastructure. The charge/discharge frequency and state of DC: U.S. Federal Transit Administration.
charge pattern may also have an impact on battery degradation, Cooney, G., T. R. Hawkins, and J. Marriott. 2013. Life cycle assess-
ment of diesel and electric public transportation buses. Journal of
which would affect the frequency of battery replacement and
Industrial Ecology 17(5): 689–699.
battery cost (Jeong et al. 2015). Therefore, it can be meaningful
Davis, S. C., S. W. Diegel, and R. G. Boundy. 2014. Transportation
to explore the optimal deployment of off-WCs and consider energy data book: Edition 33. Oak Ridge, TN, USA: Oak Ridge
the infrastructure utilization rate and battery degradation to National Laboratory.
minimize life cycle energy consumption, GHG emissions, or Dinger, A., R. Martin, X. Mosquet, M. Rabl, D. Rizoulis, M. Russo,
costs. The trade-off of charging infrastructure and battery size and G. Sticher. 2014. Batteries for electric cars: Challenges, oppor-
also needs to be further explored by extending the model to tunities, and the outlook to 2020. Boston, MA, USA: The Boston
incorporate dynamic wireless charging. With more charging Consulting Group.
infrastructure available and charging in motion, a wirelessly Dunn, J. B., L. Gaines, J. Sullivan, and M. Q. Wang. 2012. Impact of
charged bus can carry a further downsized on-board battery recycling on cradle-to-gate energy consumption and greenhouse
(Suh and Kim 2013; Thornton 2014). It will be useful to analyze gas emissions of automotive lithium-ion batteries. Environmental
Science & Technology 46(22): 12704–12710.
whether the marginal benefit of further battery downsizing will
Fabbri, G., F. M. F. Mascioli, M. Pasquali, F. Mura, and A. Dell’Era.
offset the marginal burdens from increased wireless charging
2013. Automotive application of lithium-ion batteries: A new
infrastructure. generation of electrode materials. Paper presented at 2013 IEEE
International Symposium on Industrial Electronics (ISIE), 28–31
May, Taipei, Taiwan.
Acknowledgments Grosjean, C., P. H. Miranda, M. Perrin, and P. Poggi. 2012. Assessment
of world lithium resources and consequences of their geographic
This research is part of the U.S.-China Clean Energy
distribution on the expected development of the electric vehicle
Research Center (CERC) on Clean Vehicles, which is partially industry. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 16(3): 1735–
supported by the U.S. Department of Energy (Award No. 1744.
DE-PI0000012) and its industrial partners. This research was Guena, T. and P. Leblanc. 2006. How depth of discharge affects
conducted as part of the Energy Systems Analysis, Technology the cycle life of lithium-metal-polymer batteries. Paper pre-
Roadmaps and Policy thrust of the CERC. sented at 28th Annual International Telecommunications Energy
Conference, 2006, INTELEC’06, 10–14, September, Providence, for light-duty passenger vehicle electrification. Journal of Power
RI, USA. Sources 273: 966–980.
Hawkins, T. R., O. M. Gausen, and A. H. Strømman. 2012. Environ- Suh, I. S. and J. Kim. 2013. Electric vehicle on-road dynamic charging
mental impacts of hybrid and electric vehicles—A review. The system with wireless power transfer technology. Paper presented at
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 17(8): 997–1014. 2013 IEEE International Electric Machines & Drives Conference
Hensley, R., J. Newman, M. Rogers, and M. Shahinian. 2012. Battery (IEMDC), 12–15 May, Chicago, IL, USA.
technology charges ahead. McKinsey Quarterly 3: 19–22. Tang, L., M. Chinthavali, O. C. Onar, S. Campbell, and J. M. Miller.
Jang, Y. J., E. S. Suh, and J. W. Kim. 2015. System architecture and 2014. SiC MOSFET based single phase active boost rectifier
mathematical models of electric transit bus system utilizing wire- with power factor correction for wireless power transfer appli-
less power transfer technology. IEEE Systems Journal PP(99): 1– cations. Paper presented at 2014 Twenty-Ninth Annual IEEE
12. Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition (APEC),
Jeong, S., Y. J. Jang, and D. Kum. 2015. Economic analysis of the Fort Worth, TX, USA.
dynamic charging electric vehicle. IEEE Transactions on Power Thornton, J. 2014. Pulling power from the road: Charged by the
Electronics 30(11): 6368–6377. route it follows, an electric bus gets a real world test. Mechan-
Kendall, A., G. Keoleian, and G. Helfand. 2008. Integrated life-cycle ical Engineering-CIME April: 44–49.
assessment and life-cycle cost analysis model for concrete bridge US DoT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 2013. 2013 status of the
deck applications. Journal of Infrastructure Systems 14(3): 214– nation’s highways, bridges, and transit: Conditions & performance.
222. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Lee, W. Y., J. Huh, S. Y. Choi, X. V. Thai, J. H. Kim, E. A. Al-Ammar, Highway Administration, & Federal Transit Administration.
M. A. El-Kady, and C. T. Rim. 2013. Finite-width magnetic US EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration). 2014a. Short-term
mirror models of mono and dual coils for wireless electric vehicles. energy and winter fuels outlook (STEO). Washington, DC: U.S.
IEEE Transactions on Power Electronics 28(3): 1413–1428. Energy Information Administration.
MacPherson, N. D., G. A. Keoleian, and J. C. Kelly. 2012. Fuel econ- US EIA. 2014b. Annual energy outlook 2014. Washington, DC: U.S.
omy and greenhouse gas emissions labeling for plug-in hybrid Energy Information Administration.
vehicles from a life cycle perspective. Journal of Industrial Ecology US EIA. 2014c. Electric power monthly with data for July 2014. Wash-
16(5): 761–773. ington, DC: U.S. Energy Information Administration.
Majeau-Bettez, G., T. R. Hawkins, and A. H. Strømman. 2011. Life US EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2013. The social
cycle environmental assessment of lithium-ion and nickel metal cost of carbon. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection
hydride batteries for plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles. Agency.
Environmental Science & Technology 45(10): 4548–4554. US EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2014. eGRID:
Marano, V., S. Onori, Y. Guezennec, G. Rizzoni, and N. Madella. 2009. Ninth edition with year 2010 data (version 1.0). Washington, DC:
Lithium-ion batteries life estimation for plug-in hybrid electric U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
vehicles. Paper presented at IEEE Vehicle Power and Propulsion US OMB (Office of Management and Budget). 2013. Discount rates for
Conference, 7–10 September, Dearborn, MI, USA. cost-effectiveness, lease purchase, and related analyses. Washington,
Mi, C. C. 2014. Personal communication with C. C. Mi, Professor, DC: U.S. Office of Management and Budget.
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Wu, H. H., A. Gilchrist, K. D. Sealy, and D. Bronson. 2012. A high
Michigan–Dearborn, Dearborn, MI, USA, November 2014. efficiency 5 kW inductive charger for EVs using dual side control.
Middleton, M. R. 2001. Monte Carlo simulation using RiskSim. San Fran- IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics 8(3): 585–595.
cisco, CA, USA: School of Business and Management, University Wu, H. H., A. Gilchrist, K. Sealy, P. Israelsen, and J. Muhs. 2011. A re-
of San Francisco. view on inductive charging for electric vehicles. Paper presented
Nguyen, T. D., S. Li, W. Li, and C. C. Mi. 2014. Feasibility study on at 2011 IEEE International Electric Machines & Drives Confer-
bipolar pads for efficient wireless power chargers. Paper presented ence (IEMDC), 15–18 May, Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada.
at 2014 Twenty-Ninth Annual IEEE Applied Power Electronics Xu, B. 2013. Degradation-limiting optimization of battery energy storage
Conference and Exposition (APEC), 16–20 March, Fort Worth, systems operation. Master’s thesis, ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzer-
TX, USA. land.
Ning, P., J. M. Miller, O. C. Onar, and C. P. White. 2013. A compact Ye, M., Z. Bai, and B. Cao. 2008. Robust control for regenerative brak-
wireless charging system for electric vehicles. Paper presented at ing of battery electric vehicle. IET Control Theory & Applications
2013 IEEE Energy Conversion Congress and Exposition (ECCE), 2(12): 1105–1114.
15–19 September, Denver, CO, USA. Zackrisson, M., L. Avellán, and J. Orlenius. 2010. Life cycle assessment
Norris, G. A. 2001. Integrating life cycle cost analysis and LCA. The of lithium-ion batteries for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles—
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 6(2): 118–120. Critical issues. Journal of Cleaner Production 18(15): 1519–1529.
Onar, O. C., J. M. Miller, S. L. Campbell, C. Coomer, C. White, and
L. E. Seiber. 2013. Oak Ridge National Laboratory wireless power
transfer development for sustainable campus initiative. Paper pre- About the Authors
sented at 2013 IEEE Transportation Electrification Conference
Zicheng (Kevin) Bi is a graduate student research assistant
and Expo (ITEC), 16–19 June, Detroit, MI, USA.
at the Center for Sustainable Systems in the School of Natural
Reikes, J. 2014. Personal communication with J. Reikes, North American
Fleet Sales Manager, BYD Motors Inc, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 21 Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan in
July 2014. Ann Arbor, MI, USA. Robert De Kleine was a research spe-
Sakti, A., J. J. Michalek, E. R. H. Fuchs, and J. F. Whitacre. 2015. cialist at the Center for Sustainable Systems at the University
A techno-economic analysis and optimization of Li-ion batteries of Michigan at the time the article was written. He is currently
a life cycle research analyst at Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, Sustainable Systems at the School of Natural Resources and
MI, USA. Gregory A. Keoleian is director of the Center for Environment, and a professor in the Civil and Environmental
Sustainable Systems, the Peter M. Wege Endowed Professor of Engineering Department at the University of Michigan.
Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article at the publisher’s web site:
Supporting Information S1: This supporting information contains additional background information on the bus system
simulation that was based on the transit bus fleet operating in Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti area in Michigan, U.S.A. The
detailed calculation and results of life cycle costs comparing the plug-in all-electric, wireless all-electric, conventional pure
diesel and diesel hybrid bus systems are also provided.