The Experts below are selected from a list of 2328 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Timothy E. Lipman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Lifecycle Cost assessment and carbon dioxide emissions of diesel natural gas hybrid electric fuel cell hybrid and electric transit buses
Energy, 2016Co-Authors: Antti Lajunen, Timothy E. LipmanAbstract:This paper evaluates the Lifecycle Costs and carbon dioxide emissions of different types of city buses. The simulation models of the different powertrains were developed in the Autonomie vehicle simulation software. The carbon dioxide emissions were calculated both for the bus operation and for the fuel and energy pathways from well to tank. Two different operating environment case scenarios were used for the primary energy sources, which were Finland and California (USA). The fuel and energy pathways were selected appropriately in relation to the operating environment. The Lifecycle Costs take into account the purchase, operating, maintenance, and possible carbon emission Costs. Based on the simulation results, the energy efficiency of city buses can be significantly improved by the alternative powertrain technologies. Hybrid buses have moderately lower carbon dioxide emissions during the service life than diesel buses whereas fully-electric buses have potential to significantly reduce carbon dioxide emissions, by up to 75%. The Lifecycle Cost analysis indicates that diesel hybrid buses are already competitive with diesel and natural gas buses. The high Costs of fuel cell and battery systems are the major challenges for the fuel cell hybrid buses in order to reduce Lifecycle Costs to more competitive levels.
-
a retail and Lifecycle Cost analysis of hybrid electric vehicles
Transportation Research Part D-transport and Environment, 2006Co-Authors: Timothy E. Lipman, Mark A. DelucchiAbstract:This paper analyzes the manufacturing Costs, retail prices, and Lifecycle Costs of five hybrid gasoline-electric vehicle types in high-volume production. Updating and major modifications are made to a detailed motor vehicle retail and Lifecycle Cost spreadsheet model that had previously been used to analyze the Costs of conventional vehicles, electric-drive vehicles, and other alternative-fuel vehicles. This Cost model is combined with a hybrid vehicle design and performance analysis using the ADVISOR vehicle simulation model. Five hybrid vehicle designs were examined for each vehicle type, for a total of 25 hybrid vehicle cases and a set of five baseline gasoline vehicles for comparison. It is found under various assumptions that combining the advanced package of vehicle improvements with mild vehicle hybridization provides the least-Cost the hybrid vehicle option, with Lifecycle Costs very close to those of the baseline vehicles even using the relatively low historical gasoline price of $1.46 per gallon. However, with recent higher gasoline prices then many of the more fuel efficient, but Costlier, hybrid vehicle designs become competitive from a Lifecycle Cost perspective.
-
A retail and Lifecycle Cost analysis of hybrid electric vehicles
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2006Co-Authors: Timothy E. Lipman, Mark A. DelucchiAbstract:This paper analyzes the manufacturing Costs, retail prices, and Lifecycle Costs of five hybrid gasoline-electric vehicle types in high-volume production. Updating and major modifications are made to a detailed motor vehicle retail and Lifecycle Cost spreadsheet model that had previously been used to analyze the Costs of conventional vehicles, electric-drive vehicles, and other alternative-fuel vehicles. This Cost model is combined with a hybrid vehicle design and performance analysis using the ADVISOR vehicle simulation model. Five hybrid vehicle designs were examined for each vehicle type, for a total of 25 hybrid vehicle cases and a set of five baseline gasoline vehicles for comparison. It is found under various assumptions that combining the advanced package of vehicle improvements with mild vehicle hybridization provides the least-Cost the hybrid vehicle option, with Lifecycle Costs very close to those of the baseline vehicles even using the relatively low historical gasoline price of $1.46 per gallon. However, with recent higher gasoline prices then many of the more fuel efficient, but Costlier, hybrid vehicle designs become competitive from a Lifecycle Cost perspective. © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
-
HYBRID-ELECTRIC VEHICLE DESIGN : RETAIL AND LIFE CYCLE Cost ANALYSIS
2003Co-Authors: Timothy E. Lipman, Mark A. DelucchiAbstract:This reports presents a manufacturing Costs, retail price and Lifecycle Cost modeling framework and analysis for the hybrid-electric vehicle (HEV) design. Five different HEV types in high-volume production in the year 2010 timeframe are covered: compact, mid-sized passenger car, large pickup truck, minivan, and sport-utility vehicle. A motor vehicle retail and Lifecycle Cost spreadsheet model that was previously used was updated and modified, and then combined with a HEV design and performance analysis using the Advisor vehicle simulation model. The analysis produced five different HEV designs for each vehicle type, for a total of 25 primary HEV cases and a set of five baseline gasoline vehicles for comparison.
-
An Analysis of the Retail and Lifecycle Cost of Battery-Powered Electric Vehicles
Transportation Research Part D-transport and Environment, 2001Co-Authors: Mark A. Delucchi, Timothy E. LipmanAbstract:Regulators, policy analysts, automobile manufacturers, environmental groups, and others are debating the merits of policies regarding the development and use of battery-powered electric vehicles (BPEVs). At the crux of this debate is Lifecycle Cost: the annualized initial vehicle Cost, plus annual operating and maintenance Costs, plus battery replacement Costs. To address this issue of Cost, we have developed a detailed model of the performance, energy use, manufacturing Costs, retail Costs, and Lifecycle Cost of electric vehicles and comparable gasoline internal-combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). This effort is an improvement over most previous studies of electric vehicle Costs because instead of assuming important parameter values for such variables as vehicle efficiency and battery Costs, we model these values in detail. We find that in order for electric vehicles to be Cost-competitive with gasoline ICEVs, batteries must have a lower manufacturing Cost, and a longer life, than the best lithium-ion and nickel-metal hydride batteries we modeled. We believe that it is most important to reduce the battery manufacturing Cost to $100/kWh or less, attain a cycle life of 1200 or more and a calendar life of 12 years or more, and aim for a specific energy of around 100 Wh/kg.
Mark A. Delucchi - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a retail and Lifecycle Cost analysis of hybrid electric vehicles
Transportation Research Part D-transport and Environment, 2006Co-Authors: Timothy E. Lipman, Mark A. DelucchiAbstract:This paper analyzes the manufacturing Costs, retail prices, and Lifecycle Costs of five hybrid gasoline-electric vehicle types in high-volume production. Updating and major modifications are made to a detailed motor vehicle retail and Lifecycle Cost spreadsheet model that had previously been used to analyze the Costs of conventional vehicles, electric-drive vehicles, and other alternative-fuel vehicles. This Cost model is combined with a hybrid vehicle design and performance analysis using the ADVISOR vehicle simulation model. Five hybrid vehicle designs were examined for each vehicle type, for a total of 25 hybrid vehicle cases and a set of five baseline gasoline vehicles for comparison. It is found under various assumptions that combining the advanced package of vehicle improvements with mild vehicle hybridization provides the least-Cost the hybrid vehicle option, with Lifecycle Costs very close to those of the baseline vehicles even using the relatively low historical gasoline price of $1.46 per gallon. However, with recent higher gasoline prices then many of the more fuel efficient, but Costlier, hybrid vehicle designs become competitive from a Lifecycle Cost perspective.
-
A retail and Lifecycle Cost analysis of hybrid electric vehicles
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2006Co-Authors: Timothy E. Lipman, Mark A. DelucchiAbstract:This paper analyzes the manufacturing Costs, retail prices, and Lifecycle Costs of five hybrid gasoline-electric vehicle types in high-volume production. Updating and major modifications are made to a detailed motor vehicle retail and Lifecycle Cost spreadsheet model that had previously been used to analyze the Costs of conventional vehicles, electric-drive vehicles, and other alternative-fuel vehicles. This Cost model is combined with a hybrid vehicle design and performance analysis using the ADVISOR vehicle simulation model. Five hybrid vehicle designs were examined for each vehicle type, for a total of 25 hybrid vehicle cases and a set of five baseline gasoline vehicles for comparison. It is found under various assumptions that combining the advanced package of vehicle improvements with mild vehicle hybridization provides the least-Cost the hybrid vehicle option, with Lifecycle Costs very close to those of the baseline vehicles even using the relatively low historical gasoline price of $1.46 per gallon. However, with recent higher gasoline prices then many of the more fuel efficient, but Costlier, hybrid vehicle designs become competitive from a Lifecycle Cost perspective. © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
-
HYBRID-ELECTRIC VEHICLE DESIGN : RETAIL AND LIFE CYCLE Cost ANALYSIS
2003Co-Authors: Timothy E. Lipman, Mark A. DelucchiAbstract:This reports presents a manufacturing Costs, retail price and Lifecycle Cost modeling framework and analysis for the hybrid-electric vehicle (HEV) design. Five different HEV types in high-volume production in the year 2010 timeframe are covered: compact, mid-sized passenger car, large pickup truck, minivan, and sport-utility vehicle. A motor vehicle retail and Lifecycle Cost spreadsheet model that was previously used was updated and modified, and then combined with a HEV design and performance analysis using the Advisor vehicle simulation model. The analysis produced five different HEV designs for each vehicle type, for a total of 25 primary HEV cases and a set of five baseline gasoline vehicles for comparison.
-
An Analysis of the Retail and Lifecycle Cost of Battery-Powered Electric Vehicles
Transportation Research Part D-transport and Environment, 2001Co-Authors: Mark A. Delucchi, Timothy E. LipmanAbstract:Regulators, policy analysts, automobile manufacturers, environmental groups, and others are debating the merits of policies regarding the development and use of battery-powered electric vehicles (BPEVs). At the crux of this debate is Lifecycle Cost: the annualized initial vehicle Cost, plus annual operating and maintenance Costs, plus battery replacement Costs. To address this issue of Cost, we have developed a detailed model of the performance, energy use, manufacturing Costs, retail Costs, and Lifecycle Cost of electric vehicles and comparable gasoline internal-combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). This effort is an improvement over most previous studies of electric vehicle Costs because instead of assuming important parameter values for such variables as vehicle efficiency and battery Costs, we model these values in detail. We find that in order for electric vehicles to be Cost-competitive with gasoline ICEVs, batteries must have a lower manufacturing Cost, and a longer life, than the best lithium-ion and nickel-metal hydride batteries we modeled. We believe that it is most important to reduce the battery manufacturing Cost to $100/kWh or less, attain a cycle life of 1200 or more and a calendar life of 12 years or more, and aim for a specific energy of around 100 Wh/kg.
-
An analysis of the retail and Lifecycle Cost of battery-powered electric vehicles
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2001Co-Authors: Mark A. Delucchi, Timothy E. LipmanAbstract:Regulators, policy analysts, automobile manufacturers, environmental groups, and others are debating the merits of policies regarding the development and use of battery-powered electric vehicles (BPEVs). At the crux of this debate is Lifecycle Cost: the annualized initial vehicle Cost, plus annual operating and maintenance Costs, plus battery replacement Costs. To address this issue of Cost, we have developed a detailed model of the performance, energy use, manufacturing Cost, retail Cost, and Lifecycle Cost of electric vehicles and comparable gasoline internal-combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). This effort is an improvement over most previous studies of electric vehicle Costs because instead of assuming important parameter values for such variables as vehicle efficiency and battery Cost, we model these values in detail. We find that in order for electric vehicles to be Cost-competitive with gasoline ICEVs, batteries must have a lower manufacturing Cost, and a longer life, than the best lithium-ion and nickel-metal hydride batteries we modeled. We believe that it is most important to reduce the battery manufacturing Cost to $100/kWh or less, attain a cycle life of 1200 or more and a calendar life of 12 years or more, and aim for a specific energy of around 100 Wh/kg. © 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Nigel P. Brandon - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Comparative analysis of battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid vehicles in a future sustainable road transport system
Energy Policy, 2010Co-Authors: Gregory James Offer, R. Clague, David A. Howey, Marcello Contestabile, Nigel P. BrandonAbstract:This paper compares battery electric vehicles (BEV) to hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV) and hydrogen fuel cell plug-in hybrid vehicles (FCHEV). Qualitative comparisons of technologies and infrastructural requirements, and quantitative comparisons of the Lifecycle Cost of the powertrain over 100,000 mile are undertaken, accounting for capital and fuel Costs. A common vehicle platform is assumed. The 2030 scenario is discussed and compared to a conventional gasoline-fuelled internal combustion engine (ICE) powertrain. A comprehensive sensitivity analysis shows that in 2030 FCEVs could achieve Lifecycle Cost parity with conventional gasoline vehicles. However, both the BEV and FCHEV have significantly lower Lifecycle Costs. In the 2030 scenario, powertrain Lifecycle Costs of FCEVs range from $7360 to $22,580, whereas those for BEVs range from $6460 to $11,420 and FCHEVs, from $4310 to $12,540. All vehicle platforms exhibit significant Cost sensitivity to powertrain capital Cost. The BEV and FCHEV are relatively insensitive to electricity Costs but the FCHEV and FCV are sensitive to hydrogen Cost. The BEV and FCHEV are reasonably similar in Lifecycle Cost and one may offer an advantage over the other depending on driving patterns. A key conclusion is that the best path for future development of FCEVs is the FCHEV. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
-
Comparative analysis of battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid vehicles in a future sustainable road transport system
Energy Policy, 2010Co-Authors: Gregory James Offer, R. Clague, David A. Howey, Marcello Contestabile, Nigel P. BrandonAbstract:This paper compares battery electric vehicles (BEV) to hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV) and hydrogen fuel cell plug-in hybrid vehicles (FCHEV). Qualitative comparisons of technologies and infrastructural requirements, and quantitative comparisons of the Lifecycle Cost of the powertrain over 100,000Â mile are undertaken, accounting for capital and fuel Costs. A common vehicle platform is assumed. The 2030 scenario is discussed and compared to a conventional gasoline-fuelled internal combustion engine (ICE) powertrain. A comprehensive sensitivity analysis shows that in 2030 FCEVs could achieve Lifecycle Cost parity with conventional gasoline vehicles. However, both the BEV and FCHEV have significantly lower Lifecycle Costs. In the 2030 scenario, powertrain Lifecycle Costs of FCEVs range from $7360 to $22,580, whereas those for BEVs range from $6460 to $11,420 and FCHEVs, from $4310 to $12,540. All vehicle platforms exhibit significant Cost sensitivity to powertrain capital Cost. The BEV and FCHEV are relatively insensitive to electricity Costs but the FCHEV and FCV are sensitive to hydrogen Cost. The BEV and FCHEV are reasonably similar in Lifecycle Cost and one may offer an advantage over the other depending on driving patterns. A key conclusion is that the best path for future development of FCEVs is the FCHEV.
Gregory James Offer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Comparative analysis of battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid vehicles in a future sustainable road transport system
Energy Policy, 2010Co-Authors: Gregory James Offer, R. Clague, David A. Howey, Marcello Contestabile, Nigel P. BrandonAbstract:This paper compares battery electric vehicles (BEV) to hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV) and hydrogen fuel cell plug-in hybrid vehicles (FCHEV). Qualitative comparisons of technologies and infrastructural requirements, and quantitative comparisons of the Lifecycle Cost of the powertrain over 100,000 mile are undertaken, accounting for capital and fuel Costs. A common vehicle platform is assumed. The 2030 scenario is discussed and compared to a conventional gasoline-fuelled internal combustion engine (ICE) powertrain. A comprehensive sensitivity analysis shows that in 2030 FCEVs could achieve Lifecycle Cost parity with conventional gasoline vehicles. However, both the BEV and FCHEV have significantly lower Lifecycle Costs. In the 2030 scenario, powertrain Lifecycle Costs of FCEVs range from $7360 to $22,580, whereas those for BEVs range from $6460 to $11,420 and FCHEVs, from $4310 to $12,540. All vehicle platforms exhibit significant Cost sensitivity to powertrain capital Cost. The BEV and FCHEV are relatively insensitive to electricity Costs but the FCHEV and FCV are sensitive to hydrogen Cost. The BEV and FCHEV are reasonably similar in Lifecycle Cost and one may offer an advantage over the other depending on driving patterns. A key conclusion is that the best path for future development of FCEVs is the FCHEV. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
-
Comparative analysis of battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid vehicles in a future sustainable road transport system
Energy Policy, 2010Co-Authors: Gregory James Offer, R. Clague, David A. Howey, Marcello Contestabile, Nigel P. BrandonAbstract:This paper compares battery electric vehicles (BEV) to hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEV) and hydrogen fuel cell plug-in hybrid vehicles (FCHEV). Qualitative comparisons of technologies and infrastructural requirements, and quantitative comparisons of the Lifecycle Cost of the powertrain over 100,000Â mile are undertaken, accounting for capital and fuel Costs. A common vehicle platform is assumed. The 2030 scenario is discussed and compared to a conventional gasoline-fuelled internal combustion engine (ICE) powertrain. A comprehensive sensitivity analysis shows that in 2030 FCEVs could achieve Lifecycle Cost parity with conventional gasoline vehicles. However, both the BEV and FCHEV have significantly lower Lifecycle Costs. In the 2030 scenario, powertrain Lifecycle Costs of FCEVs range from $7360 to $22,580, whereas those for BEVs range from $6460 to $11,420 and FCHEVs, from $4310 to $12,540. All vehicle platforms exhibit significant Cost sensitivity to powertrain capital Cost. The BEV and FCHEV are relatively insensitive to electricity Costs but the FCHEV and FCV are sensitive to hydrogen Cost. The BEV and FCHEV are reasonably similar in Lifecycle Cost and one may offer an advantage over the other depending on driving patterns. A key conclusion is that the best path for future development of FCEVs is the FCHEV.
Abdollah Shafieezadeh - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a multi type multi occurrence hazard Lifecycle Cost analysis framework for infrastructure management decision making
Engineering Structures, 2018Co-Authors: Ehsan Fereshtehnejad, Abdollah ShafieezadehAbstract:Abstract Infrastructure systems, especially in hazard-prone regions, may face multiple occurrences of multiple types of hazards during their lifetime. The type and intensity of the hazards and impacts on systems can vary from one event to another. An important factor that has yet to be properly addressed in natural hazard loss estimation models is the impact of damage induced by various types of prior events on the increased vulnerability of systems against various types of potential future hazards. This paper presents a new hazard Lifecycle Cost analysis framework that addresses this gap and accounts for effects of incomplete repairs of damage conditions induced by prior natural hazards on the future hazard performance of systems. Considering that the space of scenarios for multi-hazard occurrences and the impacts over the lifetime of infrastructure systems is significantly large, a recursive algorithm is proposed to efficiently determine the Lifecycle Cost of the system. This framework is applied to a realistic bridge exposed to flood and earthquake hazards to determine the optimal retrofit plan that reduces the overall Lifecycle Cost of the bridge. Results show the significance of considering different damage types induced by multiple types of hazards and repair time variations for Lifecycle Cost analysis of infrastructure systems.
-
multiple hazard incidents Lifecycle Cost assessment of structural systems considering state dependent repair times and fragility curves
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2016Co-Authors: Ehsan Fereshtehnejad, Abdollah ShafieezadehAbstract:Summary The performance and serviceability of structural systems during their lifetime can be significantly affected by the occurrence of extreme events. Despite their low probability, there is a potential for multiple occurrences of such hazards during the relatively long service life of systems. This paper introduces a comprehensive framework for the assessment of Lifecycle Cost of infrastructures subject to multiple hazard events throughout their decision-making time horizon. The framework entails the Lifecycle Costs of maintenance and repair, as well as the salvage value of the structure at the end of the decision-making time horizon. The primary features of the proposed framework include accounting for the possibility of multiple hazard occurrences, incorporating effects of incomplete repair actions on the accumulated damage through damage state-dependent repair times, and requiring limited resources in terms of input data and computational Costs. A dynamic programming procedure is proposed to calculate the expected damage condition of the structure for each possibility of the number of hazard incidents based on state-dependent fragility curves. The proposed framework is applied to a moment-frame building located in a region with high seismicity, and Lifecycle Costs are evaluated for six retrofit plans. The results displayed variation in the ranking of the retrofit actions with respect to decision-making time horizon. Furthermore, the sensitivity analyses demonstrated that disregarding repair time in the Lifecycle Cost analysis can result in false identification of unsafe retrofit actions as optimal and reliable strategies. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
-
Multiple hazard incidents Lifecycle Cost assessment of structural systems considering state‐dependent repair times and fragility curves
Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2016Co-Authors: Ehsan Fereshtehnejad, Abdollah ShafieezadehAbstract:Summary The performance and serviceability of structural systems during their lifetime can be significantly affected by the occurrence of extreme events. Despite their low probability, there is a potential for multiple occurrences of such hazards during the relatively long service life of systems. This paper introduces a comprehensive framework for the assessment of Lifecycle Cost of infrastructures subject to multiple hazard events throughout their decision-making time horizon. The framework entails the Lifecycle Costs of maintenance and repair, as well as the salvage value of the structure at the end of the decision-making time horizon. The primary features of the proposed framework include accounting for the possibility of multiple hazard occurrences, incorporating effects of incomplete repair actions on the accumulated damage through damage state-dependent repair times, and requiring limited resources in terms of input data and computational Costs. A dynamic programming procedure is proposed to calculate the expected damage condition of the structure for each possibility of the number of hazard incidents based on state-dependent fragility curves. The proposed framework is applied to a moment-frame building located in a region with high seismicity, and Lifecycle Costs are evaluated for six retrofit plans. The results displayed variation in the ranking of the retrofit actions with respect to decision-making time horizon. Furthermore, the sensitivity analyses demonstrated that disregarding repair time in the Lifecycle Cost analysis can result in false identification of unsafe retrofit actions as optimal and reliable strategies. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.