Affiliation:
1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Centre for Mechanical Technology and Automation (TEMA), University of Aveiro, Campus Universitário de Santiago, Aveiro, Portugal
Abstract
Although the production of cars has high environmental costs, producing and maintaining micromobility vehicles might consume fewer resources. Likewise, replacing the car with active mobility transportation modes would reduce noise and air pollution. The life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology contributes to the study of such environmentally sustainable solutions. We present a “cradle-to-grave” analysis by tracking activity from the extraction of raw materials until the end of the product’s life. The goal was to carry out an LCA of a novel micromobility vehicle, Ghisallo, from a life cycle thinking perspective. The LCA tool, ITF Good to Go? Assessing the Environmental Performance of New Mobility, developed by the International Transport Forum, was used to model the baseline and alternative scenarios. The vehicle’s materials, primary energy sources for battery charging, use of the vehicle as a shared mobility mode, among other factors, were changed to assess energy use and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during the life cycle chain. The LCA results of the baseline scenario for Ghisallo were similar to the values of other micromobility vehicles. Energy consumption (MJ) and GHG emissions (grams of equivalent CO2) per vehicle-kilometer (v-km) were 0.36 MJ/v-km and 29 gCO2eq/v-km, respectively. For this personal mobility vehicle, it was concluded that most GHG emissions were from its production (42% of the total). Air transport from the production to sales sites increased its impact by 10%. We present measures to decrease the energy and GHG emissions impacts of a micromobility device’s life cycle.
Funder
Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
european regional development fund
COMPETE2020
Subject
Mechanical Engineering,Civil and Structural Engineering
Reference43 articles.
1. Berrone P., i Costa J. E. R., Duch A. I. Cities and Mobility & Transportation: Towards the Next Generation of Urban Mobility (IESE Cities in Motion: International Urban Best Practices), Vol. 2. IESE Business School, University of Navarra, Barcelona, Spain, 2016, pp. 1–107.
2. Banister D. Unsustainable Transport, 1st ed. Routledge, London, 2005, pp. 1–292. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781134325122.
3. Luo H., Kou Z., Zhao F., Cai H. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Station-Based and Dock-Less Bike Sharing Systems. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 146, 2019, pp. 180–189. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0921344919301090.
4. Dell R. M., Moseley P. T., Rand D. A. J. The Evolution of Unsustainable Road Transport. In Towards Sustainable Road Transport (Dell R. M., Moseley P. T., Rand D. A. J., eds.), Academic Press, Cambridge, MA, 2014, pp. 1–64. https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/B9780124046160000013. Accessed July 20, 2021.
5. European Environment Agency. Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Transport in Europe. EEA, Copenhagen, Denmark. 2018, pp. 1–7. https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/transport-emissions-of-greenhouse-gases-7/assessment. Accessed July 20, 2021.
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献