MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396937610 · doi:10.1088/2634-4505/ad397e

Are vehicle lifespan caps an effective and efficient method for reducing US light-duty vehicle fleet GHG emissions?

2024· article· en· W4396937610 on OpenAlexafffund
Melissa Cusack Striepe, Alexandre Milovanoff, Amir F.N. Abdul-Manan, Jon McKechnie, I. Daniel Posen, Heather L. MacLean

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Research Infrastructure and Sustainability · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElectric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSaudi AramcoUniversity of TorontoNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsGreenhouse gasLife-cycle assessmentSoftware deploymentOccupancyAutomotive engineeringElectric vehicleWork (physics)Market penetrationEnvironmental economicsEnvironmental scienceEngineeringProduction (economics)Economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract With light duty vehicles (LDVs) responsible for 17% of annual US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, integrating emerging GHG-reducing technologies into the fleet is essential. However, the slow rate of vehicle turnover presents a significant barrier to the market penetration of new technologies, with adoption delayed by the low number of vehicles needing replacement each year. A strategy of accelerated vehicle turnover through a vehicle lifespan cap could potentially mitigate this limit. While older studies reach differing conclusions on their effectiveness, two newer studies that incorporate life cycle assessment find that accelerated turnover strategies can be effective if coupled with high levels of electric vehicle deployment. We seek to determine whether a vehicle lifespan cap strategy can be an effective and efficient (cost-effective) method for reducing US LDV fleet GHG emissions. We augment the capabilities of the Fleet Life Cycle Assessment and Material Flow Estimation (FLAME) fleet life cycle assessment model, integrating vehicle lifespan caps and comprehensive calculations of cost along with sensitivity analysis for electric vehicle survival curves and battery degradation. The augmented FLAME model is used to analyse the impact of vehicle lifespan caps of varying lengths on a suite of scenarios, including a business as usual (BAU) scenario and eight scenarios modelling different technology improvement assumptions. This work confirms that vehicle lifespan caps have limited effectiveness in reducing GHG emissions under a BAU scenario but show potential to meaningfully reduce GHG emissions in a scenario with accelerated deployment of electric vehicles. However, abatement costs are high, exceeding 2020 USD 1000/tCO 2 eq under baseline assumptions, but falling within the range of current estimates of the social cost of carbon under more optimistic assumptions. Overall, vehicle lifespan caps must be carefully considered as they accelerate both the benefits and costs of new vehicle technologies, and are best positioned as part of a larger integrated strategy for tackling transportation GHG emissions.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Research Infrastructure and SustainabilitySame topicElectric Vehicles and InfrastructureFrench-language works237,207