Advances and critical aspects in the life-cycle assessment of battery electric cars

Figures & data

Figure 1 Global passenger car sales.

Note: Data from International Energy Agency¹⁶, Weiss et al¹³⁴, GAS2¹³⁵, OICA¹³⁶.

Figure 2 Stylized life-cycle assessment of BEVs.

Note: Data from ISO.¹¹

Abbreviation: BEVs, battery electric vehicles.

Figure 3 Number of articles and scientific reports published between 2011 and 2015 on the environmental impacts of BEVs.

Abbreviation: BEVs, battery electric vehicles.

Figure 4 Simplified carbon footprint comparison of BEVs and ICEVs considering the use phase and the impacts of battery production only.

Notes: ICEV: the minimum value (122 g CO₂/km; CO₂ emissions considered here only instead of CO₂ equiv, resulting in deviations of just 1–2%)¹⁵ is based on the assumption that on-road emissions are 41% higher than the certified 73 g CO₂/km for the Toyota Prius IV⁶² and that carbon losses along the fuel production and distribution chain reach on average 18%.¹⁵ The maximum value (354 g CO₂/km) assumes 13 L/100 km fuel consumption⁵⁰ and likewise a supply chain losses of 18%. CtL: the use-phase carbon footprint can reach up to 787 g CO₂/km when based on CtL fuel.¹¹² BEV: electricity consumption at charging point is 19–27 kWh/100 km; “BEV high coal” scenario is based on 1002 g CO₂ equiv/kWh in China.⁵⁴ “BEV medium carbon” scenario is based on the EU27 electricity carbon footprint of 540 g CO₂/kWh in 2009;⁴⁰ “BEV EU27 2030” scenario assumes a carbon footprint of 211 g CO₂ equiv/kWh (prediction);⁶⁰ “BEV low carbon” scenario assumes a carbon footprint of 150 g CO₂ equiv/kWh (rounded from Helmers et al⁴⁴). We add 18.3 g CO₂ equiv/km²² to each BEV scenario to account for the carbon footprint of the battery.

Abbreviations: BEV, battery electric vehicle; CtL, coal-to-liquid; ICEVs, internal combustion engine vehicles; V2G, vehicle-to-grid.

Table 1 Life cycle assessment of impact categories other than carbon footprint on the midpoint level

Impact category	BEV beneficial BEV neutral BEV adverse each in comparison with ICEV	BEV life cycle components identified responsible for adverse impacts
Pollution and toxicity
Ozone depletion	H15 BN16 CU15 SZ12
Photochemical oxidant formation	H15 B15^if RE HO16 HA13 SZ12 AG10 BN16 CU15
Terrestrial acidification	H15 HA13 CU15 B15 ME14 SZ12 BN16^if RE
Marine eutrophication	H15	Battery (H15)
Freshwater eutrophication	H15 BN16 HA13 CU15	Powertrain (H15), battery + use phase (HA13)
Ionising radiation	H15 BN16	Powertrain (H15)
Human toxicity	H15 B15 BN16 HA13 HM11 HO16 CU15 SZ12	Powertrain (H15), battery + fuel supply (B15), powertrain + battery (HA13), battery (AG10), battery (HA13)
Human toxicity potential (CML01)	AG10
Health damage (Ei99)	AG10
Respiratory effects	ME14
Particulate matter formation	H15 B15^if RE HO16 BN16 HA13
Marine ecotoxicity	H15 SZ12 BN16 CU15	Powertrain (H15), powertrain + battery + use phase (HA13)
Freshwater ecotoxicity	H15 SZ12 BN16 CU15 HA13
Terrestrial ecotoxicity	H15 SZ12 BN16 CU15 HA13
Resources
Natural land transformation	H15 BN16 B15
land use (CML01)	SZ12
Urban land occupation	H15 BN16	Powertrain + battery (H15)
Agricultural land occupation	H15 BN16	Fuel supply (H15)
Fossil resource depletion	H15 HA13
Water depletion	H15	Battery (H15)
Mineral resource depletion	H15 HA13 ME14	Powertrain (H15), powertrain + battery (HA13)
Metal resource depletion	BN16
Abiotic resource depletion	CU15 SZ12 NO10
Resource damage (Ei99)	AG10

Notes: Citations in green, black, and red depict environmental and health-related advantages, neutrality, and disadvantages, respectively, of BEVs compared to ICEVs. H15, Helmers et al;⁴⁴ B15, Bauer et al;⁴³ HO16, Hooftman et al;¹³⁷ BN16, Boren and Ny;¹³⁸ CU15, Choma and Ugaya;¹³⁹ ME14, Messagie et al;¹⁴⁰ HA13, Hawkins et al;⁶⁷ SZ12, Szczechowicz et al;³² HM11, Habermacher;²¹ NO10, Notter et al;²⁶ AG10, Althaus and Gauch;¹⁴¹ Ei99 and CML01, impact assessment methods in case not ReCiPe analogous;⁴⁸ if RE, impacts when BEV operated with renewable electricity related to the reference stated before.

Abbreviations: BEV, battery electric vehicle; ICEV, internal combustion engine vehicle.

Figure 5 Schematic overview of critical aspects in the comparative life-cycle assessment of BEVs and conventional cars.

Abbreviations: BEVs, battery electric vehicles; GHG, greenhouse gas.

International Energy Agency (IEA). Global EV Outlook 2015. 2015. Available from: www.iea.org/evi/Global-EV-Outlook-2015-Update_1page.pdf. Accessed April 17, 2016.

 Google Scholar

Weiss M, Patel MK, Junginger M, Perujo A, Bonnel P, van Grootveld G. Learning rates and price projections for hybrid-electric and battery-electric vehicles. Energy Policy. 2012;48:374–393.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

GAS2 [webpage on the Internet]. EV Sales Rose Significantly. GAS2 – Important Media Network. 2016. Available from: http://gas2.org/2016/03/09/ev-sales-rose-significantly-worldwide-2015/. Accessed May 24, 2016.

 Google Scholar

OICA [webpage on the Internet]. 2005-2015 Sales Statistics. OICA – International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers; 2016. Available from: http://www.oica.net/category/sales-statistics/. Accessed May 24, 2016.

 Google Scholar

International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework, 2006. ISO 14040. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO; 2006.

 Google Scholar

Cames M, Helmers E. Critical evaluation of the European diesel car boom – global comparison, environmental effects and various national strategies. Environ Sci Eur. 2013;25(15):22. Available from: http://www.enveurope.com/content/pdf/2190-4715-25-15.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Jungmeier G. IEA HEV Task 19 – LCA of EV. Results of IEA HEV task 19 activities 2012–2015. Presentation on EA Expert Workshop “LCA of Electric Vehicles – Current Status and Future Perspectives”; November 11; 2015; Vienna.

 Google Scholar

Yan X, Crookes RJ. Energy demand and emissions from road transportation vehicles in China. Prog Energy Combust Sci. 2010;36:651–676.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Huo H, Wang M, Zhang X, et al. Projection of energy use and GHG emissions by motor vehicles in China: policy options and impacts. Energy Policy. 2012;43:37–48.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Joint Research Centre (JRC). Tank-to-Wheels Report Version 4a, 2014. WTW Analysis of Future Automotive Fuels and Powertrains in the European Context. CONCAWE, EUCAR, JRC. 2014. Available from: http://iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu/about-jec/sites/iet.jrc.ec.europa.eu.about-jec/files/documents/wtw_report_v4a_march_2014_final.pdf. Accessed October 20, 2016.

 Google Scholar

European Union (EU) [webpage on the Internet]. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Brussels: Energy Roadmap 2050; 2011. Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/;ELX_SESSIONID=pXNYJKSFbLwdq5JBWQ9CvYWyJxD9RF4mnS3ctywT2xXmFYhlnlW1!-868768807?uri=CELEX:52011DC0885. Accessed April 10, 2016.

 Google Scholar

Helmers E, Dietz J, Hartard S. Electric car LCA based on real-world mileage and the electric conversion scenario. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2015:1–6.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bauer C, Hofer J, Althaus HJ, Del Duce A, Simons A. The environmental performance of current and future passenger vehicles: LCA based on a novel scenario analysis framework. Appl Energy. 2015;157:871–883.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hooftman N, Oliveira L, Messagie M, Coosemans T, van Mierlo J. Environmental analysis of petrol, diesel and electric passenger cars in a Belgian urban setting. Energies. 2016;9(2):1–24.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Boren S, Ny H. A strategic sustainability analysis of EV in EU today and towards 2050. Int Sch Sci Res Innov. 2016;10(3):237–245.

 Google Scholar

Choma F, Ugaya CML. Environmental impact assessment of increasing electric vehicles in the Brazilian fleet. J Cleaner Prod. In press 2015.

 Google Scholar

Messagie M, Boureima FS, Coosemans T, Macharis C, Van Mierlo JA. Range-based vehicle LCA incorporating variability in the environmental assessment of different vehicle technologies and fuels. Energies. 2014;7:1467–1482.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hawkins TR, Singh B, Majeau-Bettez G, Strømman AH. Comparative environmental LCA of conventional and EV. J Ind Ecol. 2013;17(1):53–64.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Szczechowicz E, Dederichs T, Schnettler A. Regional assessment of local emissions of EV using traffic simulations for a use case in Germany. Int J Life Cycle Assess. 2012;17(9):1131–1141.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Habermacher F. Modeling Material Inventories and Environmental Impacts of Electric Passenger Cars [MS-thesis]; 2011. Available from: https://www.empa.ch/documents/56122/458579/MasterThesis_Habermacher.pdf/7d82e2fb-247c-4e6e-a549-32e82bda8a37. Accessed December 10, 2016.

 Google Scholar

Notter DA, Gauch M, Widmer R, et al. Contribution of Li-ion batteries to the environmental impact of EV. Environ Sci Technol. 2010;44:6550–6556.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Althaus HJ, Gauch M. Elektromobilität versus konventionelle Mobilität mit Bio und fossilen Treibstoffen. Dübendorf: LCA and Modelling Group, Technologie und Gesellschaft, EMPA; 2010:162.

 Google Scholar

Frischknecht R, Jungbluth N, Althaus H.-J, et al. Implementation of Life Cycle Impact Assessment Methods. ecoinvent report No. 3, v2.0. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Dübendorf, 2007.

 Google Scholar