Life-cycle assessments are ways to gauge the impact of any product or process. What is the cost of a system over a defined period of time? Life-cycle assessments are really important as we consider the transition to renewable energy sources, especially as we share insights into a zero emissions future with newbies or cynics.
Life-cycle assessments provide an exhaustive overview of the upstream (material sourcing and delivery) and downstream (product distribution, use, and disposal) impacts associated with any given system. Originally designed to focus on environmental impacts by scientists, they now have been extended to examine social and economic impacts, sometimes called life-cycle costing, by policymakers and decision-makers. The most comprehensive evaluations begin with the extraction of raw material; move to the various steps of production, implementation, and operation; and extend all the way to the energy use of carriers to perform work.
Life-cycle analysis considers both upfront cost of production and incremental costs of operation and depreciation. As a data-intensive methodology, it incorporates all inputs and outputs, requires detailed information, and is organized into databases known as life-cycle inventories.
What Do the Scientists Say about Energy Resources & their Life-Cycle Assessments?
Executive summaries from a variety of scientific white papers can offer us life cycle insights into different energy sources. Here are a few to peruse.
Active Transportation:Life-cycle analysis provides a comprehensive view of the environmental impact of transportation infrastructure due to processes involving construction, operation, and maintenance.
Airplanes show the highest GHG emissions — 3 times that of cars and 6 times that of buses.
Cars or buses show higher GHG emissions when considering life-cycle impacts than the results without the life-cycle impacts because the GHG impact of manufacturing and operating automobiles and buses could be greater than that of other modes.
Walking does not require any tools, so its life-cycle impact is minimal compared to other modes.
The GHG impact of producing and maintaining bicycles is much smaller than that of automobiles or public transportation vehicles.
On balance, active transportation modes produce far less emissions than other modes even after taking into account all the life-cycle impacts.
Biomass: Co-firing biomass as a means of GHG abatement becomes economically competitive with traditional carbon capture and sequestration only after an incentive is in place to mitigate emissions.
The point at which co-firing becomes an attractive option depends on the potential value of CO2, the level of an emissions penalty, and the type of plant.
The break-even value would either represent the amount required on the sale of the captured CO2 in the capture cases, or a benefit received for the use of biomass as a fuel source in the non-capture cases, when compared to the economics of a supercritical (SC) PC plant without capture or co-firing.
This value would need to be reached before incentivizing either CO2 capture or biomass co-firing. The emissions penalty would be the minimum value required to encourage the use of capture technology or abatement using biomass.
Hydropower: The assessment considers various ecological influence groups which could be generally categorized as — global warming, ozone formation, acidification, eutrophication, ecotoxicity, human toxicity, water consumption, stratospheric ozone depletion, ionizing radiation, and land use.
Though water itself is not lethal, the electricity production process involves many stages, which creates environmental issues.
Furthermore, the transportation medium of these elements to the plant location releases hazardous particles i.e., carbon monoxide, dust, and carcinogenic particles.
Among the key impact groups, the whole outcomes show that a substantial ecological influence occurred at non-alpine region plants over alpine region plants. The reason behind this is that the long distance transportation of raw materials in non-alpine region hydropower plants due to unavailability at nearby locations where raw materials of the alpine based plants is available at nearby locations.
The maximum impact is occurred at fine particulate matter formation impact category due to freshwater eutrophication category by both types of hydropower plants. The reason behind these impacts is the amount of toxic materials present as constituent of plant structure and its electricity production steps.
Natural Gas: This analysis takes into account a wide range of performance variability across different assumptions of climate impact timing.
Natural gas-fired baseload power production has life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 35% to 66 % lower than those for coal-fired baseload electricity.
The lower emissions for natural gas are primarily due to the differences in average power plant efficiencies (46% efficiency for the natural gas power fleet versus 33% for the coal power fleet) and a higher carbon content per unit of energy for coal in comparison to natural gas.
Natural gas-fired electricity has 57% lower GHG emissions than coal per delivered megawatt-hour (MWh) using current technology when compared with a 100-year global warming potential (GWP) using unconventional natural gas from tight gas, shale, and coal beds.
Petroleum: Petroleum is produced from crude oil, a complex mixture of hydrocarbons, various organic compounds, and associated impurities.
The crude product exists as deposits in the earth’s crust, and the composition varies by geographic location and deposit formation contributors. Its physical consistency varies from a free flowing liquid to nearly solid. Crude oil is extracted from geological deposits by a number of different techniques.
When comparing transportation GHG emissions, both the tailpipe or tank-to-wheel (TTW) emissions, and the upstream or well-to-tank (WTT) emissions are considered in the full well to wheel (WTW) life cycle.
Extracting, transporting, and refining crude oil and bio-based alternatives on average account for approximately 20-30% of well-to-wheels (WTW) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions with the majority of emissions generated during end use combustion in the vehicle phase (TTW).
GHG emissions in the generic cases range from ≈105 to 120 g of CO2/MJ [gasoline basis, full fuel cycle, lower heating value (LHV) basis] when co-produced electricity displaces natural-gas-fired combined-cycle electricity.
The carbon intensity varies with the energy demand of TEOR, the fuel combusted for steam generation, the amount of electric power co-generated, and the electricity mix. The emission range for co-generation-based TEOR systems is larger (≈70−120 g of CO2/MJ) when coal is displaced from the electricity grid (low) or coal is used for steam generation (high). The emission range for the California-specific cases is similar to that for the generic cases.
Solar: Life-cycle assessment is now a standardized tool to evaluate the environmental impact of photovoltaic technologies from the cradle to the grave.
The carbon footprint emission from PV systems was found to be in the range of 14–73 g CO2-eq/kWh, which is 10 to 53 orders of magnitude lower than emission reported from the burning of oil (742 g CO2-eq/kWh from oil).
Negative environmental impacts of PV systems could be substantially mitigated using optimized design, development of novel materials, minimize the use of hazardous materials, recycling whenever possible, and careful site selection. Such mitigation actions will reduce the emissions of GHG to the environment, decrease the accumulation of solid wastes, and preserve valuable water resources.
Following a report published by the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), the volume of PV panel waste could globally yield a value of up to 60–78 million tons by 2050. Recycling solar cell materials can also contribute up to a 42% reduction in GHG emissions.
Wind: Wind power presents minimal emissions and environmental impacts during the working phase, being considered as a “cleaner” generation source. But not all stages of wind power are so efficient.
The extraction of raw materials, manufacturing, and transportation as part of wind power construction have significant emissions of CO2 and environmental impacts.
Not only will improvements in logistics, transportation, a mixed electricity supplement, and a more efficient equipment production reduce CO2 emissions from wind power construction, new basic materials and innovative built techniques may decrease CO2 emissions and energy demand.
Decommissioning stage may present a reduction of the energy consumption and CO2 emissions through reusing equipment, recycling critical materials in the end of life cycle, reducing the extraction of raw materials and the total consumption of resources.
Such changes may create unexpected fluctuations in the market, such as shortages of supplies and dependence on exporters.
Of course, there are many other types of energy sources and other data analyses to consult to consider life cycle assessments. For more ideas, try Life Cycle Analysis of Energy for a good starting point.
However, Tesla has since removed Nissan from its list of automakers with access and switched the Japanese automaker back to the “coming soon” list.
Nissan confirmed to Electrek that access is not currently available, but it will be available by the end of the year.
It sounds like a miscommunication on Tesla’s side. We hear that it should be coming soon.
Elon Musk fired Tesla’s entire charging team – seemingly to make an example of its then-head of charging, Rebecca Tinucci, who reportedly disagreed with Musk about making further layoffs following another layoff wave.
Instead of just firing her, Musk decided to fire the entire team and then sent an email to other Tesla managers using the charging team situation as a warning.
Tesla has since had to rehire several former members of its charging team to rebuild the department.
This is believed to have slowed down the opening of the Supercharger network to other automakers in North America. We were told that communications with Tesla’s charging team were difficult to non-existent for those automakers for weeks earlier this year.
Europe’s “green dream” Northvolt has filed for bankruptcy protection in the US after a rescue package failed to go through, leaving the battery maker with just one week’s worth of cash in the account. Cofounder and CEO Peter Carlsson, who spearheaded a costly expansion, has also quit.
The Swedish-owned battery maker filed for Chapter 11 in the Southern District of Texas, reports Bloomberg, with $5.8 billion debt. CEO Peter Carlsson, Telsa’s former chief products officer, stepped down from his role as CEO after the filing, but will remain onboard as advisor and director.
According to a statement, Northvolt said that its main factory will maintain business as usual during the reorganization, as the company now has a buffer from creditors, giving it time to restructure the balance sheet. However, the company said that this will not impact its business in Germany, and through the court process, Northvolt now has access to about $145 million in cash collateral. An additional $100 million in debtor-in-possession financing will be added to the pot via one of its customers, the report said.
The company still has a $7 billion project in place in Quebec – a new campus that is set to include a cell production plant, battery recycling, and cathode active-material production facilities – and the bankruptcy won’t affect those plans, the company said on its website. “Northvolt Germany and Northvolt North America, subsidiaries of Northvolt AB with projects in Germany and Canada, are financed separately and will continue to operate as usual outside of the Chapter 11 process as key parts of Northvolt’s strategic positioning.”
The plant is expected to have capacity to produce 30 GWh of battery cell every year, with an expansion set to double that output, making it enough to power 1 million EVs. The Canadian government is putting $1.334 billion CND toward the project, with Quebec chipping in another $1.37 billion CND.
Northvolt has hit hard times in recent months, once thought of as Europe’s best shot to homegrown EVs and the makers of “the world’s greenest battery.” Enthusiasm mounted as the company opened the doors to its first plant in Sweden, in the small town of Skelleftea near the Arctic Circle, in 2021. Billions of dollars have been invested into the company, and Volvo, VW, and BMW rushed to place future orders.
All of this enthusiasm has been fueled by a vision to cut dependency on China by creating greener EV batteries using 100 percent recycled nickel, manganese, and cobalt. Plans were put in place to build factories in Gothenburg, in southern Sweden, and Poland, Germany, and Canada, all backed by huge government subsidies. Back in January, the company raised an additional $5 billion, firmly locking in its position as one of Europe’s best-funded startups and recipient of the largest-ever green loan in the EU.
But then things started going south, with Northvolt’s production problems and massive delays forcing BMW to cancel its €2 billion battery cell order with the company. This past May, Northvolt also announced that it pushing back its plans for an IPO until next year. The interim report that followed revealed the dire state of its finances and how far its production had fallen short of goals, with Carlsson admitting he had been “too aggressive” with the company’s expansion plan.
Since Northvolt has put in place a series of changes to reset the company’s course, including bringing onboard a new CFO, leaving the former CFO to focus solely on expansion plans. Plus the company started making cuts, including closing down its research center, Cuberg, in San Francisco and deprioritizing secondary businesses. At the end of September, Northvolt announced that it would cut 1,600 staff from three Swedish sites and about 20 percent of its international workforce.
Last month, Volvo started proceedings to take over their joint venture with Northvolt, while Volkswagen Group’s representative to Northvolt’s board stepped down this month. Sweden, for its part, is ruling out taking a stake to save its homegrown enterprise, Bloomberg reports. Carlsson had said last month that the company needs more than $900 million to permanently shore up its finances.
Photo credit: Northvolt
If you’re an electric vehicle owner, charge up your car at home with rooftop solar panels. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing on solar, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them.
Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisers to help you every step of the way. Get started here.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links.More.
Leading yard operation 3PL YMX Logistics has announced plans to deploy fully twenty (20) of Orange EV’s fully electric Class 8 terminal trucks at a number of distribution and manufacturing sites across North America.
As the shipping and logistics industries increasingly move to embrace electrification, yard operations have proven to be an almost ideal use case for EVs, enabling companies like Orange EV, which specialize in yard hostlers or terminal tractors, to drive real, impactful change. To that end, companies like YMX are partnering with Orange EV.
“This relationship between YMX and Orange EV is a significant step forward in transforming yard operations across North America,” said Matt Yearling, CEO of YMX Logistics. “Besides the initial benefits of reduction in emissions and carbon footprint, our customers are also seeing improvements in the overall operational efficiency and seeking to expand. Our team members have also been sharing positive feedback about their new equipment and highlighting the positive impact on their health and day-to-day activities.”
This Orange looks good in blue
One of the most interesting aspects of this story – beyond the Orange EV HUSK-e XP’s almost unbelievable 180,000 lb. GCWR spec. – is that this isn’t a story about California’s ports, which mandate EVs. Instead, YMX is truly deploying these trucks throughout the country, with at least four currently in Chicago (and more on the way).
“Our collaboration with YMX Logistics represents a powerful stride in delivering sustainable yard solutions at scale for enterprise customers,” explains Wayne Mathisen, CEO of Orange EV. “With rising demand for electric yard trucks, our joint efforts ensure that more companies can access the environmental, financial, and operational benefits of electrification … this is a win for the planet, the workforce, and the bottom line of these organizations.”
We interviewed Orange EV founder Kurt Neutgens on The Heavy Equipment Podcast a few months back, but if you’re not familiar with these purpose-built trucks, it’s worth a listen.