Home
Resource
Economic feasibility and environmental impact of wireless charging techniques for electric ground fleet in airports
PDF
PDF format is widely accepted and good for printing.
Plug-in required
PDF-1(1.00 MB)
Citation & Export
View Usage Statistics
Staff View

Citation & Export
Hide

Simple citation

Marques Soares, Laura. Economic feasibility and environmental impact of wireless charging techniques for electric ground fleet in airports. Retrieved from https://doi.org/doi:10.7282/t3-1522-cz08

Export

Click here for information about Citation Management Tools at Rutgers.

Statistics
Hide

Description

TitleEconomic feasibility and environmental impact of wireless charging techniques for electric ground fleet in airports
NameMarques Soares, Laura (author); Wang, Hao (chair); Mazurek, Monica (internal member); Jin, Peter (internal member); Rutgers University; School of Graduate Studies
Date Created2020
Other Date2020-10 (degree)
SubjectWireless charging, Civil and Environmental Engineering
Extent1 online resource (x, 73 pages) : illustrations
DescriptionBalancing environmental, economic, and social issues is challenging for industry sectors and government agencies. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of the United States (U.S.), the transportation sector was responsible for 29% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the U.S. in 2017. Electric mobility is an alternative to mitigate this issue by substituting fossil fuels for electricity. In addition, the use of energy from a renewable source will increase even more environmental benefits. Charging these vehicles can be wireless or wired, stationary, or in-motion.

Many airports are converting the conventional ground fleet to electric vehicles to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and increase airport operations sustainability. It is necessary to understand the economic feasibility and environmental impacts of this change to justify the decision. This study first used life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) to compare electrified ground fleet’s economic performance compared to conventional fossil fuel option. Three different charging systems (plug-in charging, stationary wireless charging, and dynamic wireless charging) for pushback tractors and inter-terminal buses at a major hub airport were considered in the analysis. Although the conventional fossil fuel options present the lowest initial cost for both fleets, it costs the most in a 30-year analysis period. Among three electric charging infrastructures, the plug-in charging station shows the least accumulative present value of cost. Although the electric ground fleet is proved to show economic benefits, the most cost-effective charging infrastructure may vary depending on driving mileage and system design. The use of LCCA to analyze new systems and infrastructures for decision-making is highly recommended.

Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is then used to quantify the environmental impact of electric fleet compared to conventional fossil fuel vehicles. The assessment was analyzed for energy consumption and emission of CO2-eq respectively to assess Cumulative Energy Demand (CED) and Global Warming (GW) potential. The results show that the operation phase outweighs any initial impact from manufacturing and charger construction phases; the operations phase accounts for both the highest CED and GW values. For both pushbacks and buses, the electric options are shown to have very similar impacts. The lower impact option can quickly change depending on the design. On the other hand, the conventional vehicle system presented the highest impact on the two studied categories for both fleets. The discrepancy between conventional buses and all three electric options is even higher on the bus fleet study, suggesting that electric buses are environmentally better than conventional.
NoteM.S.
NoteIncludes bibliographical references
Genretheses, ETD graduate
Persistent URLhttps://doi.org/doi:10.7282/t3-1522-cz08
LanguageEnglish
CollectionSchool of Graduate Studies Electronic Theses and Dissertations
Organization NameRutgers, The State University of New Jersey
RightsThe author owns the copyright to this work.
Version 8.5.5
Rutgers University Libraries - Copyright ©2024