Advertisement

Life cycle assessment of fuel cell vehicles a methodology example of input data treatment for future technologies

  • J. Fernando Contadini
  • Robert M. Moore
  • Patricia L. Mokhtarian
LCA Methodology

Abstract

Life cycle assessment (LCA) will always involve some subjectivity and uncertainty. This reality is especially true when the analysis concerns new technologies. Dealing with uncertainty can generate richer information and minimize some of the result mismatches currently encountered in the literature. As a way of analyzing future fuel cell vehicles and their potential new fuels, the Fuel Upstream Energy and Emission Model (FUEEM) developed at the University of California—Davis, pioneered two different ways to incorporate uncertainty into the analysis. First, the model works with probabilistic curves as inputs and with Monte Carlo simulation techniques to propagate the uncertainties. Second, the project involved the interested parties in the entire process, not only in the critical review phase. The objective of this paper is to present, as a case study, the tools and the methodologies developed to acquire most of the knowledge held by interested parties and to deal with their — eventually conflicted—interests. The analysis calculation methodology, the scenarios, and all assumed probabilistic curves were derived from a consensus of an international expert network discussion, using existing data in the literature along with new information collected from companies. The main part of the expert discussion process uses a variant of the Delphi technique, focusing on the group learning process through the information feedback feature. A qualitative analysis indicates that a higher level of credibility and a higher quality of information can be achieved through a more participatory process. The FUEEM method works well within technical information and also in establishing a reasonable set of simple scenarios. However, for a complex combination of scenarios, it will require some improvement. The time spent in the process was the major drawback of the method and some alternatives to share this time cost are suggested.

Keywords

Expert judgment fuel cell vehicles fuel cycle analysis fuel upstream analysis future technology analysis interested parties’ participation inventory data treatment technological forecasting uncertainty analysis well to wheels 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Acurex Environmental Corporation (1996): Evaluation of Fuel-Cycle Emissions on a Reactivity Basis. 2 volumes. Prepared for CARB. A166–134. Principal Authors: Unnasch S, Browning L, Montano MGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Alawi S M, Islam S M (1996): Principles of Electricity Demand Forecasting. Part 1: Methodologies. Power Engineering Journal. June, pp. 139–143Google Scholar
  3. Armstrong JS (1985): Long Range Forecasting: From Crystal Ball to Computer. 2nd ed, Wiley-Interscience Publication, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Armstrong JS (1999): Introduction to Paper and Commentaries on the Delphi Technique. International Journal of Forecasting 15, 351–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Armstrong JS, Collopy F (1993): Casual Forces: Structuring Knowledge for Time Series Extrapolation. Journal of Forecasting 12, 103–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ayton P, Ferrel WR, Stewart, TR (1999): Commentaries On ‘The Delphi Technique as a Forecasting Tool: Issues and Analysis’ by Rowe and Wright. International Journal of Forecasting 15, 377–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Belson William A (1981): The Design and Understanding of Survey Questions. Gower Publishing Co, Aldershot, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  8. Brockhoff, K (1984): Forecasting Quality and Information. Journal of Forecasting 3, 417–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clemen, Robert T (1985): Extraneous Expert Information. Journal of Forecasting 4, 329–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Contadini JF (2000): Life-cycle Emissions and Energy Requirement of Fuel Cell Vehicles Use in 2010: Dealing with Uncertainties. Thesis Proposal. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. University of California at DavisGoogle Scholar
  11. Contadini JF, Moore RM, Sperling D, Sundaresan M (2000a): Life-cycle Emissions of Alternative Fuels for Transportation: Dealing with Uncertainties. Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc; SAE 2000–01–0597Google Scholar
  12. Contadini JF, Diniz CV, Sperling D, Moore RM (2000b): Hydrogen Production Plants: Emissions and Thermal Efficiency Analysis. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Technological and Environmental Topics in Transports. Milan, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  13. Contadini JF, Diniz CV, Sperling D, Moore RM (2000c): Design and Energy Requirements for Future Marketing Activities of Gaseous Hydrogen Fuel for Fuel Cell Vehicles. Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Technological and Environmental Topics in Transports. Milan, OctoberGoogle Scholar
  14. Dalkey N, Helmer O (1963): An experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts. Journal of the Institute of Management Science 9, 458–467Google Scholar
  15. Dransfeld H, Pemberton J, Jacobs G (2000): Quantifying Weighted Expert Opinion: The Future of Interactive Television and Retailing. Technological Forecasting and Social Changes 63, 81–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Delbecq AL, Van de Ven AH (1971): A Group Process Model for Problem Identification and Program Planning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 7 (4) 466–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Delbecq A L, Van de Ven A H, Gustafson D H (1975): Group Technique for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Process. Scott Foresman and Company. Glenview, IL, USAGoogle Scholar
  18. DeLucchi MA (1991): Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from the Use of Transportation Fuels and Electricity. Vol 1: Main Text. Center for Transportation Research. Argonne National Laboratory. ANL/ESD/TM-22, Vol 1Google Scholar
  19. DeLucchi MA (1993): Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from the Use of Transportation Fuels and Electricity. Vol 2: Appendices A-S Center for Transportation Research. Argonne National Laboratory. ANL/ESD/TM-22, Vol 2Google Scholar
  20. DeLucchi MA (1997): A Revised Model of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from the Use of Transportation Fuels and Electricity. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California at Davis. UCD-ITS-RR-97–22Google Scholar
  21. EIIP—Emission Inventory Improvement Program, (1996): Evaluating the Uncertainty of Emission Estimates. Vol VI: Chapter 4. Prepared by Radian Corporation for U S EPA Quality Assurance Committee, JulyGoogle Scholar
  22. ETSU—Energy Technology Support Unit (1998): Further Assess- ment of the Environmental Characteristics of Fuel Cells and Competing Technologies. By Hart D, Bauen A, for DTI (Department of Trade and Industry), ETSU F /02/00153/REPGoogle Scholar
  23. Gupta UG, Clarke RE (1996): Theory and Applications of the Delphi Technique: A Bibliography (1975-1994). Technological Forecasting and Social Change 53, 185–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harrison MR, Theresa MS, Wessels JK, Cowgill RM (1997): Methane Emissions from the Natural Gas Industry. Project Summary. United States Environmental Protection Agency—EPA/600/SR- 96/080, JuneGoogle Scholar
  25. International Standard ISO 14040 (1997): Environmental Management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework. First edition, International Organization for Standardization. Reference number: ISO 14040:1997(E)Google Scholar
  26. International Standard ISO 14041 (1998): Environmental Management—Life cycle assessment—Goal and Scope Definition and Inventory Analysis. First edition, International Organization for Standardization. Reference number: ISO 14041:1998(E)Google Scholar
  27. Jones H, Twiss BC (1978): Forecasting Technology for Planning Decisions. A Petrocelli Book publication, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Linstone HA, Turoff M (1975): The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Addison & Wesley. Reading, MA, USAGoogle Scholar
  29. Martino JP (1983): Technological Forecasting for Decision Making. 2nd ed North-Holland, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  30. Parenté FJ, Anderson JK, Myers P, O’Brien T (1984): An Examination of Factors Contributing to Delphi Accuracy. Journal of Forecasting 3, 173–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Porter AL, Rossini FA (1987): Technological Forecasting, in Singh, MG (ed) Encyclopedia of System and Control, pp 4823–4828, Oxford: PergamonGoogle Scholar
  32. Porter AL, Roper AT, Mason TW, Rossini FA, Banks J (1991): Forecasting and Management of Technology. Wiley Series in Engineering & Technology Management. Wiley Interscience publication, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  33. Roper AT (1988): A Technique for the Early Stage of an Assessment. Procedings of the International Workshop on Impact Assessment for International Development. International Association for Impact Assessment. Barbados, West IndiesGoogle Scholar
  34. Rowe G, Wright G (1999): The Delphi Technique as a Forecasting Tool: Issues and Analysis. International Journal of Forecasting 15, 353–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Spath PL, Mann MK (2000): Life Cycle Assessment of Hydrogen Production via Natural Gas Steam Reforming. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-570–27637, AugustGoogle Scholar
  36. Sperling D (1988): New Transportation Fuels: A Strategic Approach to Technological Change. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  37. Sperling D, DeLuchi MA (1989): Transportation Energy Futures. Annual Review of Energy 14, 375–424, OctoberCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sudman S, Bradburn NM (1982): Asking Questions: A Practical Guide to Questionnaire Design, 1st ed, Jossey-Bass San Francisco, USAGoogle Scholar
  39. Sullivan WG, Claycombe WW (1977): Fundamentals of Forecasting. Reston Publishing Company. Reston, Virginia, USAGoogle Scholar
  40. Trommsdorff G (1982): Group Influences on Judgments Concerning the Future. Chapter 5. Studies in Decision Making. Irle M (ed) De Gruyter, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  41. Van Dijk J (1990): Delphi Questionnaires versus Individual and Group Interview: A Comparison Case. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 37, 293–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vose D (1996): Quantitative Risk Analysis: A Guide to Monte Carlo Simulation Modelling. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  43. Wang MQ (2000): Greet 1.5a: Changes from Greet 1.5, Center for Transportation Research, Energy System Division, Argonne National LabGoogle Scholar
  44. Welch E, Bretschneider S, Rohrbaugh J (1998): Accuracy of Judgmental Extrapolation of Time Series Data: Characteristics, Causes, and Remediation Strategies for Forecasting. International Journal of Forecasting 14, 95–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Winkler RL, Makridakis S (1983): The Combination of Forecasts. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General) 146 (2) 150–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ecomed Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Fernando Contadini
    • 1
  • Robert M. Moore
    • 2
  • Patricia L. Mokhtarian
    • 2
  1. 1.Environmental Engineering DepartmentUniversity of California at DavisUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Transportation StudiesUniversity of California at DavisUSA

Personalised recommendations