Lifecycleairqualityimpactsofconventionaland详解.pdf

Life cycle air quality impacts of conventional and alternative light-duty transportation in the United States a b,1 a,1 Christopher W. Tessum , Jason D. Hill , and Julian D. Marshall aDepartment of Civil, Environmental, and Geo- Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455; and bDepartment of Bioproducts and Biosystems Engineering, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN 55108 Edited by Douglas J. Arent, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, and accepted by the Editorial Board November 8, 2014 (received for review April 15, 2014) Commonly considered strategies for reducing the environmental “gasoline”); (ii) grid-independent hybrid EVs (“gasoline hybrid”); impact of light-duty transportation include using alternative fuels (iii) diesel powered light-duty vehicles (“diesel”); (iv) internal- and improving vehicle fuel economy. We evaluate the air quality- combustion CNG vehicles (“CNG”); (v) vehicles powered by related human health impacts of 10 such options, including the use ethanol from corn grain through natural-gas–powered dry mill- of liquid biofuels, diesel, and compressed natural gas (CNG) in ing (“corn ethanol”); (vi ) vehicles powered by cellulosic ethanol internal combustion engines; the use of electricity from a range of from corn stover (“stover ethanol”); and battery EVs (“EV”) conventional and renewable sources to power electric vehicles powered by electricity from the following: (vii ) the projected year (EVs); and the use of hybrid EV technology. Our approach combines spatially, temporally, and chemically detailed life cycle emission 2020