|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Srl | Item |
1 |
ID:
133119
|
|
|
Publication |
2014,
|
Summary/Abstract |
The built environment can be used to influence travel demand, but very few studies consider the relative energy savings of such policies in context of a complex urban system. This analysis quantifies the day-to-day and embodied energy consumption of four different neighborhoods in Austin, Texas, to examine how built environment variations influence various sources of urban energy consumption. A microsimulation combines models for petroleum use (from driving) and residential and commercial power and natural gas use with rigorously measured building stock and infrastructure materials quantities (to arrive at embodied energy). Results indicate that the more suburban neighborhoods, with mostly detached single-family homes, consume up to 320% more embodied energy, 150% more operational energy, and about 160% more total life-cycle energy (per capita) than a densely developed neighborhood with mostly low-rise-apartments and duplexes. Across all neighborhoods, operational energy use comprised 83 to 92% of total energy use, and transportation sources (including personal vehicles and transit, plus street, parking structure, and sidewalk infrastructure) made up 44 to 47% of the life-cycle energy demands tallied. Energy elasticity calculations across the neighborhoods suggest that increased population density and reduced residential unit size offer greatest life-cycle energy savings per capita, by reducing both operational demands from driving and home energy use, and from less embodied energy from construction. These results provide measurable metrics for comparing different neighborhood styles and develop a framework to anticipate energy-savings from changes in the built environment versus household energy efficiency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
ID:
112903
|
|
|
Publication |
2012.
|
Summary/Abstract |
GPS data for a year's worth of travel by 255 Seattle households illuminate how plug-in electric vehicles can match household needs. The results suggest that a battery-electric vehicle (BEV) with 100 mi of range should meet the needs of 50% of one-vehicle households and 80% of multiple-vehicle households, when charging once a day and relying on another vehicle or mode just 4 days a year. Moreover, the average one-vehicle Seattle household uses each vehicle 23 mi per day and should be able to electrify close to 80% of its miles, while meeting all its travel needs, using a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) with 40-mile all-electric range. Households owning two or more vehicles can electrify 50 to 70% of their total household miles using a PHEV40, depending on how they assign the vehicle across drivers each day. Cost comparisons between the average single-vehicle household owning a Chevrolet Cruze versus a Volt PHEV suggest that, when gas prices are $3.50 per gallon and electricity rates are at 11.2 ct/kWh, the Volt will save the household $535 per year in operating costs. Similarly, the Toyota Prius PHEV will provide an annual savings of $538 per year over the Corolla.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|