Next Article in Journal
Structural Vector Autoregressive Approach to Evaluate the Impact of Electricity Generation Mix on Economic Growth and CO2 Emissions in Iran
Previous Article in Journal
An Overview of Demand Response in Smart Grid and Optimization Techniques for Efficient Residential Appliance Scheduling Problem
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Influence of Power Sources for Charging the Batteries of Electric Cars on CO2 Emissions during Daily Driving: A Case Study from Poland

1
Faculty of Environmental Science and Technology, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, 50-363 Wroclaw, Poland
2
Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences, 51-630 Wroclaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2020, 13(16), 4267; https://doi.org/10.3390/en13164267
Submission received: 29 June 2020 / Revised: 3 August 2020 / Accepted: 17 August 2020 / Published: 18 August 2020
(This article belongs to the Section E: Electric Vehicles)

Abstract

:
The main sources of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution from the transport sector are diesel- and gasoline-powered passenger cars. The combustion of large amounts of conventional fuels by cars contributes to a significant release of various compounds into the atmosphere, such as solid particles, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide. In order to reduce these pollutants in places of their high concentration (especially in urban agglomerations), the use of ecological means of transport for daily driving is highly recommended. Electric vehicles (EV) are characterized by ecological potential due to their lack of direct emissions and low noise. However, in Poland and many other countries, electricity production is still based on fossil fuels which can significantly influence the indirect emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere associated with battery charging. Thus, indirect emissions from electric cars may be comparable or even higher than direct emissions related to the use of traditional cars. Therefore, the aim of the work was to analyze the amount of carbon dioxide emissions associated with the use of electric vehicles for daily driving (City, Sedan, SUV) and their impact on the environment on a local and global scale. Based on the assumed daily number of kilometers driven by the vehicle and the collected certified catalog data (Car Info Nordic AB), the direct emissions generated by the internal combustion engines (ICE) were calculated for specific cars. These values were compared to the indirect emissions related to the source of electricity generation, for the calculation of which the CO2 emission coefficient for a particular energy source and energy mix was used, as well as reference values of electricity generation efficiency in a given combustion installation, in accordance with the KOBiZE (The National Centre for Emissions Management) and European Union regulation. Indirect emissions generated from non-renewable fuels (lignite, hard coal, natural gas, diesel oil, heating oil, municipal waste) and renewable emissions (wind energy, solar energy, hydro energy, biomass, biogas) were considered. The results indicated that for the Polish case study, indirect carbon dioxide emission associated with the daily driving of EV (distance of 26 km) ranges 2.49–3.28 kgCO2∙day−1. As a result, this indirect emission can be even higher than direct emissions associated with ICE usage (2.55–5.64 kgCO2∙day−1).

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

One of the key objectives of the European Union’s climate and energy policy is to reduce greenhouses gases (GHG) emissions by at least 40% by 2030, compared to 1990 [1]. To do this, the focus should be on reducing GHG emissions from the highest emission sectors, which include energy supply, industry, and transport. However, compared to 1990, GHG emissions from energy supply and industry are gradually decreasing. By 2017, emissions from these sectors were reduced by 32% and 35%. The situation is slightly different in the case of the transport sector. During the same period, GHG emissions (especially carbon dioxide) increased by 19%, and from 2013 onwards, a steady upward trend can be observed [2].
One of the main factors responsible for GHG emissions from the transport sector is road transport, responsible for 71.7% of emissions, where the largest share of emissions are passenger cars [3]. The reasons for which most people decide to use passenger cars is the desire to become independent of public transport, shorter travel time, associated with direct reach of the destination, and driving comfort [4]. In addition, the increase in competitiveness on the automotive market has meant that the car is no longer just a luxury good, but a product available to every social group, which causes a significant increase in their number. As a result, the rapidly growing number of cars, in addition to carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions, brings many undesirable environmental effects. The use of cars with conventional internal combustion engines (ICE), which constitute the vast majority in the European Union (EU) [5], contributes to the increasing emission of air pollutants, which are a particular threat to human health and life [6]. These are not only compounds that are components of car exhaust gases—carbon monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), nitrogen oxides (NOx) [7], but also particulate matter PM10 and PM2.5, resulting from the abrasion of asphalt and car tires [8]. Such a high concentration of GHG and air pollutants from the transport sector forces measures to reduce substances harmful to the environment.
The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 explains the theoretical basis of the work associated with the presentation of electric vehicles, indirect emissions associated with the source of electricity production and explanations of the case study. Section 3 presents the methodology related to the ecological and sensitivity analysis and the data used for the calculations. Section 4 includes the results analysis and their detailed discussion. The conclusions and future works are presented in Section 5.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Electric Vehicles

A certain alternative to conventional vehicles is the use electric cars. An electric vehicle in its basic meaning can be understood as an automobile with an electric motor connected to the wheels through a gearbox with one or two speeds [9]. Currently, there are many types of electric vehicles on the market. The most popular types include the battery electric vehicle (BEV), plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV), and range extended electric vehicle (REEV). The BEV is a fully electric vehicle, in which there is no internal combustion engine, and the electric unit is responsible for driving the car and the powering of on-board devices. The PHEV is a vehicle based on an internal combustion engine supplemented with an electric motor. Whereas, the REEV is a vehicle in which the electric motor is the main power unit. The REEV is equipped with an internal combustion engine (ICE) that switches on only when it is necessary to generate energy to charge the battery, providing electric drive.
Due to the ecological potential of electric vehicles (EV), their wide use instead of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles can be beneficial for the climate and the environment [10,11]. The biggest advantages of electric cars are primarily zero direct emissions from the drive unit [12,13,14], lower operating costs [13,15] and low operational noise levels [16,17]. The positive reception of public opinion is also an important element [18]. On the other hand, negative aspects of using EV include short-range and long charging time [19,20], limited number of charging stations [21], and a high share of the battery price in the costs of the vehicle [22], the replacement of which involve additional, significant investment.

2.2. The Use of EV and Indirect Emissions Associated with the Source of Electricity Production

The development of electro mobility on both a local and global scale may be one of the most key decisions for achieving a sustainable energy future [23]. Anthony Jnr et al. [24] indicated that the development of electric mobility as a service, bringing together different electric means of transport (cars, bicycles, etc.) is one of the solutions combining the possibility of alleviating environmental issues while improving transport at the same time. Such action may be particularly helpful in the case of designing complex transport architecture for technologically advanced cities (smart cities) [25]. However, in order to fully consider the potential for EV reduction by CO2, the specific aspects of generating electricity at a given location should be identified. Compared to traditional ICE cars, which are powered solely by diesel or unleaded gasoline, the electricity for EV charging can be generated from various energy sources—conventional (e.g., lignite, coal, natural gas) and renewable (e.g., biomass, biogas, solar energy, wind energy, hydro energy). Although the electric cars during their daily driving do not generate any pollution directly into the atmosphere, they can significantly contribute to the generation of indirect emissions associated with the source of electricity for battery charging [26]. A lot of work has been done in recent years to show the real impact of energy production on the environmental performance of EV [27,28,29,30]. Hacker [31] showed that depending on the diversity of sources in domestic electricity production, the average emission index, describing the actual amount of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere per unit of energy produced, is characterized by high variety, but fossil fuels have the highest emission. Admittedly, Krause et al. [32] reported that strong electrification of the car fleet can be a significant potential in reducing CO2 emissions, if the electricity generated for batteries charging comes primarily from low-carbon sources.
The most favorable, from an ecological point of view, is charging the batteries with renewable energy. The production of electric energy, however, depends on the country and is highly diversified in the European Union (Figure 1). As a result, the development of electro mobility in countries with a dominant share of fossil fuels in electricity generation may prove controversial.

2.3. Related Works

There are also several studies in the literature that compare the indirect EV emissions associated with the source of electricity generation in relation to a specific case study, using different methods. These cases are summarized in Table 1.
Holdway et al. [34], calculated average CO2 emissions based on the amount of CO2 produced and the electricity generated in the grid. In addition, they included for each EV in each country well-to-power-plant emissions, using fuel efficiency data, the breakdown of total net electricity generation and the well-to-power-plant emissions for each type of fuel used in electricity generation. They used this data to describe a case study from the US, UK, and France. A similar methodology was used by Williams [35], with case studies being extended to 15 countries. Similarly, calculations for the Indian case study were used by Kurien and Srivastava [36], analyzing the EV emissivity from different scenarios. A slightly different simulation for case studies from Sweden, the US, China, and France was developed by Pan et al. [37]. In order to comprehensively analyze the possibility of implementing transport electrification for a specific country, the authors decided to use the innovative AGT method, combining the AHP, Gray Relation Grade Analysis and TOPSIS methods. In turn, Wolfram and Wiedmann [38], for the Australian case study, used the LCA methodology to analyze the environmental performance of EVs depending on the percentage share of renewable energy sources in electricity production.
However, in the literature there is no study focusing in detail on the problem of implementing electrification of transport, when electricity production will still relay on coal. In fact, in the case of India [36], the problem of generating electricity from coal partially meets this criterion, but the fast transformation of the energy system in that country reduces the use of solid fuels as energy sources. Kurien and Srivastava [36] considered that in 2022, the share of renewable energy sources in electricity production in India will increase to 51%. Therefore, it seems crucial to consider a case study with a slower abandonment of hard coal and lignite in favor of renewable energy sources. There are also no case studies included Poland, which has its own very large resources of coal.

2.4. Poland as a Case Study

An example of a country in the European Union, whose production of electricity is based mostly on solid fossil fuels is Poland (Figure 2), which mainly uses hard coal and lignite [39]. Over the past few decades, the Polish power industry has produced over 80% of electricity from both of these raw materials. Although European Union regulations and low-carbon economy are oriented to electricity production from renewable energy sources and biofuels, in Poland it is still a definite minority. Additionally, the process of abandoning coal energy in Poland will not be as fast as in other countries. Due to the high installed power of electricity and the high level of employment in the coal sector, it should still be expected that in the coming years, lignite and hard coal will be Poland’s main raw materials in electricity production. The Ministry of Energy in Poland estimates that in 2030, both raw materials will still be responsible for the production of 56–60% of electricity [40]. It is only in 2040 that a significant decrease in the share of coal in electricity generation should be expected, although this is still an uncertain scenario. Many studies showed that domestic electricity production, when coal is the main source, has a harmful effect on the natural environment, which is associated primarily with high emissions of carbon dioxide and other air pollutants [41,42,43,44]. As a result, using an electric car in Poland, with the batteries charging with energy from the commercial power grid, will not provide zero emission. In this situation, the development of electro mobility in Poland might be considered controversial and treated with due caution. In fact, the problem of concentration of air pollutants in urban agglomerations can be significantly eliminated but it will not contribute to reducing the amount of pollutants in the overall balance, due to the only change in the place of emission of harmful compounds. Despite the fact that the geospatial effects of changing the place of CO2 emissions from populated to uninhabited places may have a positive effect even for the health of residents, the amount of emissions into the atmosphere will remain unchanged. Additionally, among the European Union countries, Polish cities are among the worst for air quality, which is confirmed by the latest European Environment Agency (EEA) report [45]. This problem is mainly due to low emissions, which is also exacerbated by road transport. Such action leads to numerous social conflicts, which requires urgent changes in the scope of national and international climate policy.
The main aim of the work was to analyze the Polish case study of the environmental performance of the EV during the daily driving depending on the energy source for electricity production to charge the car batteries, and to compare the results with the emission of pollutants when using vehicles with the internal combustion engine. Additionally, the sensitivity analysis concerning the influence of the renewable energy share in Polish energy mix on the reduction of CO2 emission was considered, as well.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Cars Used in the Experiments and Data Collection

In the research, the cars powered by various types of fuel, such as gasoline, diesel, and electricity were considered. As a result, the nine vehicles were selected. The vehicles belonged to the three classes: city, sedan, and SUV. The engine power for each car in the specified category was the same. The main characteristics of the cars are presented in Table 2.

3.2. Ecological Analysis

In order to analyze the environmental impact of electric vehicles (EV) and to compare the results with conventional internal combustion engines (ICE), it was assumed that the daily distance covered by each car amounts to 26 km [47]. For the purposes of the analysis, this value was averaged, but there are many second-order effects that directly affect the behavior of drivers in relation to vehicle kilometers of travel (VKT), such as the impact of the fuel tax, and socio-economic and demographic factors [48]. The main idea of the work was to compare only emissions associated with the process of vehicle operation (daily driving). As the cars’ (EV and ICE), fuels, and other devices can be produced in different countries and with a different electricity mix, the CO2 emissions related to this process were also excluded from the analysis. In the case of cars with an ICE, only direct emissions related to fuel consumption (combustion) were taken into account, while in the case of the EV, indirect emissions related to the production of electricity for battery charging were considered. These limitations led to focus the attention on the problem of electric cars’ application and their indirect impact on the environment in Poland, a country still dominated by coal usage. The environmental analysis included parameters such as: the daily CO2 emission compared to car use (MCO2), the CO2 emission value depending on the source of electricity generation (MREC-CO2), the amount of daily energy consumed by the EV, and the daily CO2 emission related to the use of the electric vehicle (MD-CO2).
The daily value of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, generated by using cars, was calculated according to the formula:
MCO2 = MCAT-CO2·L
where: MCO2—daily carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, generated by using cars (kg∙day−1); MCAT-CO2—catalogue value of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere (kg∙km−1), L—daily distance covered by cars (km∙day−1).
The amount of actual carbon dioxide emissions generated to charge the electric car batteries, resulting from the complete combustion of fuels and introduced directly or indirectly into the environment by the electricity generating installation operating at rated parameters (Table 3), was calculated according to the formula [49]:
M REC - C O 2 = 360 · W e C O 2 η
where: MREC-CO2–carbon dioxide emissions for the specified fuel (kg∙MWh−1); WeCO2–carbon dioxide emission coefficient for specified fuel or average carbon dioxide emission coefficient of a fuel mixture combusted in specified energy sources installations (kg∙GJ−1); η—electricity generation efficiency in the specified fuel combustion installation (%).
The electricity demand by the EV was calculated using the equation:
E = L·ECAT-E
where: E—daily amount of energy consumed during the EV operation (kWh·day−1); ECAT-E—catalogue value of the electric car’s electricity consumption (kWh·km−1).
The daily amount of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, emitted during one day of operation of the electric vehicle, was calculated according to the formula:
M D - C O 2 = E · K i · M REC - C O 2
where: MD-CO2—the amount of carbon dioxide emitted during one day of electric car operation (g); Ki—the share of given fuel in electricity production (%).

3.3. Sensitivity Analysis

Due to the fact that, compared to individual fuels, the WeCO2 emission factor for energy mix from the grid varies (depending on the share of specified fuels in domestic electricity production), it was decided to carry out the sensitivity analysis. Sensitivity analysis was performed to investigate how the changes in the Polish energy mix can influence the negative or positive effect of the considered issue. With reference to the current value of the CO2 emission factor for the Polish energy mix [51], the impact of changing the value of this factor on the environmental performance of the EV was determined, and the obtained data was compared with direct emissions generated by the ICE, whose level is constant. The analysis was carried out separately for each of the car classes.

4. Results and Discussion

The daily direct emission of carbon dioxide generated by using EV and ICE and released into the atmosphere is shown in Figure 3. In order to determine it, the standard daily number of kilometers traveled by a vehicle (L) was multiplied (Formula (1)) with the catalog values of carbon dioxide emissions per kilometer MCAT-CO2, presented in Table 2, and determined in accordance with the certified car database Car Info Nordic AB.
In the case of the ICE, direct carbon dioxide emissions are comparable and within the range 2.55 kgCO2∙day−1 and 3.30 kgCO2∙day−1. This is in line with a common trend of the majority of car manufacturers focused on CO2 emission reduction [52]. Among the car classes, the SUVs emit much more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (5.64 kgCO2∙day−1 for gasoline, and 3.59 kgCO2∙day−1 for diesel). It is associated with a significantly higher fuel consumption characterizing this model compared to vehicles from other classes [52,53]. The use of an EV does not generate direct CO2 emissions [54,55].
However, although the EVs do not generate direct emissions, they contribute significantly to the generation of indirect emissions associated with the source of electricity generated to charge the batteries [56,57]. The national power plant portfolio and specific power plants used to generate electricity in the process of charging batteries have a significant impact on the amount of carbon dioxide assigned to indirect emissions [58,59]. For countries such as Poland, where the majority of electricity is generated from fossil fuels, the electricity in the grid, which is a mixture of energy from various power plants, it is necessary to determine the indirect CO2 emissions resulting from the combustion of specified/participated fuels. Depending on the fuel/energy source used, this emission is highly diversified (Figure 4).
The WeCO2 coefficients adopted in Table 3, determined for power plants in Poland are similar to those used in other countries [60,61,62]. Among the analyzed energy sources, the highest MREC-CO2 emission is characterized by solid biomass (1440 kgCO2∙MWh−1). However, in this case, the overall balance of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere is zero or insignificant, due to the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by biomass during the plant’s growing phase [63]. For other energy sources, the largest emission is characterized by electricity generated from municipal waste—1320.5 kgCO2∙MWh−1, lignite 953.91 kgCO2∙MWh−1, and coal 777.76 kgCO2∙MWh−1. Slightly lower emissions are from oils (heating oil: 630.51 kgCO2∙MWh−1, diesel: 603.53 kgCO2∙MWh−1), biogas (468 kgCO2∙MWh−1) and natural gas (384.68 kgCO2∙MWh−1). The CO2 emission rate for energy from the grid, which is a mixture of energy from various power plants, is relatively high and amounts to 765 kgCO2∙MWh−1 [51]. The calculated emissions are very similar to emissions from power plants in other European countries [64,65]. Electricity production from the sun and wind does not generate any direct carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. However, LCA analyses indicate that the average value of indirect emissions for electricity generation from the sun is 26 kgCO2∙MWh−1, from hydro 11 kgCO2∙MWh−1, and from wind 29 kgCO2∙MWh−1, which is still much lower than for other energy sources [66].
Depending on the source of electricity, the EV may have carbon dioxide emissions comparable to the ICE. To this end, a comparison was made comparing the daily indirect emission, depending on the source of electricity production, used to charge the EV batteries, and the daily direct emission generated by cars with a gasoline and diesel engine. Formulas (2)–(4) are used to determine the indirect emissions related to the source of electricity production. Formula (2) was obtained in accordance with the information provided by the Polish Ministry of Energy, together with the CO2 emission coefficient specified in Table 3. Reference power plant efficiency values for a given energy source, also contained in Table 3, were calculated by means of an EU regulation. Formula (3), determining the demand for daily electricity, results from the multiplication of the daily number of kilometers traveled by the vehicle (L) with the catalog values of electricity consumption during the use of the ECAT-CO2 vehicle, contained in Table 2, obtained in accordance with the certified car database Car Info Nordic AB. Equation (3), determining the final daily amount of indirect emission resulting from charging EV batteries, was calculated by multiplying the daily demand for electricity by EV, the share of a particular source in electricity production (for individual sources apart from the energy mix, 100% was assumed) and the indirect emission calculated in Formula (2) for a specified energy source.
Depending on the class, the EV may have a more positive or more negative ecological impact than traditional/conventional ICE cars (Figure 5). The results shown in Figure 5 revealed that for the Polish case study, charging batteries with electricity from the mains may be more harmful to the environment than using ICE cars. Although only in one case (City class) the indirect emission was higher than the direct emission, the differences were not very significant.
Electricity consumption also has a significant impact on the environmental performance of electric cars. The EV with high electricity consumption may turn out to be less eco-friendly than standard ICE cars. Among the analyzed classes, this is the case in the City class, where indirect emission, assuming battery charging from the grid, is higher (3.17 kgCO2∙day−1) than direct emission of diesel (2.70 kgCO2∙day−1) and lower than direct emission of gasoline cars (3.30 kgCO2∙day−1). In the other classes, indirect emissions for the energy mix are lower than direct emission from diesel cars and from gasoline cars. However, these differences are not significant enough to sufficiently reduce carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. In the Sedan class, direct diesel emissions were only 0.06 kgCO2∙day−1 higher than indirect EV emissions (and in the case of gasoline—0.6 kgCO2·day−1. A more substantial difference was recorded in the SUV class—indirect emissions were by 2.36 kgCO2∙day−1 lower than direct emissions of a gasoline car, but still characterized by high carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere (3.28 kgCO2∙day−1).
The presented results are in accordance with the literature. Depending on the national energy mix and source of electricity, the EV may be more harmful to the environment [33,34]. The use of electric cars does not ensure zero emissions. Certainly, their advantage is that they do not emit direct pollutants into the atmosphere, minimizing the accumulation of pollutants from the transport sector, particularly in urban agglomerations. However, the overall balance of carbon dioxide emissions is not being reduced. Only the place of emission of harmful pollutants is changing.
The situation is worst when the electricity used to charge the electric car battery comes from power plants burning municipal waste. Then, the EV turns out to generate nearly twice as much CO2 emissions as cars with internal combustion engines. However, the percentage share of such power plants in electricity generation is negligible, both in Poland [67] and in other European countries [68]. The coal-fired and lignite-fired power plants, which constitute 70% of the total share in electricity production in Poland, also cause high pollution. In this case, the development of electro mobility seems to be very controversial.
Currently, the number of registered EVs in Poland is negligible compared to ICE cars. The main reasons for such a situation are higher costs, the lack of a sufficiently developed infrastructure for charging EV batteries (they are most often found only in large urban agglomerations), and limited driving range. Hence, it should be expected that the fastest development of electro mobility will take place in large cities. In order to check the potential impact of replacing part of the ICE with the EV on the daily CO2 emission in the city with the current WeCO2 emission coefficient, an analysis was made based on the city of Warsaw—the capital of Poland.
The number of diesel, gasoline, and electric cars was estimated based on the Central Statistical Office [69] on transport in Poland (Table 4). Assuming the average direct emission for all ICE classes (diesel—2.95 kgCO2∙day−1, gasoline—4.0 kgCO2∙day−1), the average indirect emission for all EV classes (2.98 kgCO2∙day−1), and the replacement of conventional cars with electric ones in the amount of 25%, 50%, and 75%, the environmental consequences for a capital city were estimated. The results are shown in Figure 6.
Despite the fact that in the case under consideration, replacing diesel cars with EV is worse for the environment (an increase from 3 MgCO2∙day−1 to 8 MgCO2∙day−1), replacing gasoline cars brings a measurable positive environmental effect. The daily CO2 emissions, if 75% of gasoline cars were to be replaced, would be reduced by over 441 MgCO2 (the removal of CO2 emissions from the city). The geospatial effects of changing the place of emission should indeed be considered, but such a situation would significantly reduce low emissions, which is one of the main problems in Polish cities. In the case of Warsaw, replacing 25% of ICEs with EVs would result in the amount of over 819 MgCO2·day−1, and in the case of 50% and 75%, 1638 MgCO2·day−1 and 2457 MgCO2·day−1, respectively. Shifting emissions to the power plants located outside the cities, in addition to better control of pollutant emissions into the atmosphere (constantly monitored emission levels), also provides the of dilution of emissions in the non-urban areas. Such action allows one to maintain the permissible level of emissions, in contrast to urban agglomerations where transport is responsible for a smog effect and overall poor air quality.

Energy Mix—Sensitivity Analysis

From an ecological point of view, it would be better to charge the batteries with energy from renewable sources—especially from the sun and wind. Such actions would allow one to achieve a significant potential for reducing air pollution in the transport sector. The gradual increase in the share of renewable energy sources in electricity production and the abandonment of coal is one of the framework points of the European Union’s low-carbon policy. It is, therefore, expected that in subsequent years, in countries with a dominant share of fossil fuels, an increase in electricity production from renewable sources will be observed. In addition, the CO2 emission limit introduced in recent years in the European Union for newly manufactured ICEs will significantly reduce the direct emissions generated by these cars [70]. Therefore, appropriate decisions should be made in shaping the country’s energy policy to strive to minimize indirect carbon emissions, ultimately.
Indirect emissions due to the daily driving were also compared with direct emissions depending on the change in the emission value of the energy mix (Figure 7). In the presented case, it was considered how the percentage change in the emissivity indicator for the Polish energy mix will affect the environmental performance of the EV use. In the City class, for indirect emissions to be lower than direct emissions, the emission coefficient for the energy mix would have to be reduced by around 15%. Due to the gradual increase in the share of renewable sources in electricity production in Poland, it should be recognized that this result is potentially achievable over several years. In other classes this factor would not require any reduction, however indirect emissions were slightly lower than direct emissions. In the Sedan class, an increase of approximately 2% in the WeCO2 emission factor for the grid mix would be enough for the indirect emission to be equal to the direct diesel emission, and for this to occur in the SUV class, this factor would have to increase by approximately 10%. The slope of the equation (directional coefficient) of daily CO2 emissions as a function of the change in the emission coefficient for energy mix for City cars (3.172) and SUVs (3.7868) turned out to be significantly higher than the slope of the equation for Sedans (2.4863). Due to the fact that air pollution in Poland most often affects urban agglomerations, a high value of the directional coefficient for City cars, which are mainly dedicated to urban and suburban driving, is desirable. In such a situation, along with the decrease in the WeCO2 emission coefficient for the energy mix, the daily value of indirect emission resulting from charging the EV batteries will decrease rapidly, thanks to which the use of the EV may prove to be an effective way to reduce CO2.
The sensitivity analysis for the use of the EV, based on various energy sources, was also made by Ellingsen et al. [71]. The authors determined that the charging of batteries of electric vehicles of different classes, with electricity based on high carbon content fuel is 12–31% higher compared to ICEs. Along with the decrease in the share of carbon in the production of electricity used to charge batteries, carbon dioxide emissions are gradually reduced, which coincides with the results presented. In the analyzed work, however, the emission factor for coal was slightly higher than that used for Poland’s energy mix. However, for the environmental effect to be measurable, the decrease in the carbon dioxide emission factor for the energy mix would have to be much larger than 15%.

5. Conclusions

The comparison of the direct and indirect carbon dioxide emissions related only to the daily driving of the EV and different car classes with ICEs was evaluated. When comparing the direct emission of the ICE with the indirect emission of the EV, it can be seen that in countries such as Poland, with a high share of fossil fuels in electricity production, electric motors can be even more harmful to the environment than gasoline and diesel vehicles. In the case under consideration, with the current value of the WeCO2 emissivity factor for energy from the commercial power grid, charging EV batteries with this energy turned out to generate indirect emission, very similar to the direct emission from ICE. The worst environmental effect was recorded in the City class, where the indirect emission was 0.47 kgCO2∙day−1 higher than the direct emission of diesel of the same class. In the remaining classes, the indirect emission was lower than the direct one, but still had a high value (2.49–3.28 kgCO2∙day−1). Charging electric vehicles with energy that comes from renewable sources (especially wind and sun), with zero direct emissions, and from natural gas seems to be currently the most environmentally friendly solution.
The increase in the share of renewable energy sources in electricity production will have a positive impact on the environmental performance of the EV in Poland. However, the increase in electrification in the transport sector will result in increased demand for electricity in the country. Such a situation can create problems for the domestic energy industry as well as for the stability of the power grid. It is necessary to gradually transform the energy system towards a greater share of renewable sources, which will measurably contribute to reducing the problem of air pollution. In order to limit the negative consequences of the charging of the EV batteries with energy from the power grid, in the case under consideration, the emission factor for energy from the grid should be reduced by a minimum of 15%.
The change of the ICE car into the EV for daily driving does not ensure zero emissions. In such conditions of the energy market such as in Poland it leads only to a considerable reduction of pollutant accumulation in urban areas, especially in large cities. The air quality is improved locally, and the noise level is reduced, undoubtedly improving the comfort and quality of life of their inhabitants. Unfortunately, however, the emission concentration changes only the location. To achieve a measurable reduction potential of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, electricity used to charge the EV batteries should be produced from renewable sources.
The manuscript is also a basis for future research on the environmental effects of the implementation of electric cars depending on the domestic share of individual sources in electricity production. The main limitation in the article was the exclusion from the analysis of the environmental effects of producing and recycling ICEs and EVs, as well as secondary processes such as fuels production and delivery to the petrol stations/power plant etc. Due to the fact that these activities are carried out in countries with different footprints for the environment, the scope of the manuscript could be lost and unclear (as a result). Future work should also focus on the geospatial effects of changing the place of carbon dioxide emissions due to the use of electrification of road transport as a tool to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Another issue could be the analysis of the impact of additional factors, such as the ratio of gasoline/diesel prices to electricity, tax increase, and social status on drivers’ behavior in terms of the number of daily kilometers traveled for a particular car category and type.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Ł.S. and A.D.; Data curation, Ł.S.; Formal analysis, Ł.S. and A.D.; Funding acquisition, A.D.; Investigation, Ł.S.; Methodology, Ł.S. and A.D.; Resources, Ł.S. and A.D.; Software, Ł.S.; Supervision, A.D.; Validation, Ł.S. and A.D.; Visualization, Ł.S.; Writing—original draft, Ł.S. and A.D.; Writing—review and editing, A.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

BEVbattery electric vehicle
EEAEuropean Environment Agency
EUEuropean Union
EVelectric vehicle
GHGgreenhouses gases
HEVhybrid electric vehicle
ICEinternal combustion engines
PHEVplug-in hybrid electric vehicle
REEVrange extended electric vehicle
VKTvehicle kilometers of travel

References

  1. Green Paper: A 2030 Framework for Climate and Energy Policies. Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52013DC0169 (accessed on 19 April 2020).
  2. European Environment Agency (EEA). Total Greenhouse Gas Emission Trends and Projections in Europe; EEA: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2019; Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/ (accessed on 20 April 2020).
  3. European Environment Agency (EEA). How Have Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transport in Europe Evolved? EEA: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2019; Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/ (accessed on 20 April 2020).
  4. Mackett, R. Reducing Car Use in Urban Areas. Transp. Sustain. 2012, 3, 211–230. [Google Scholar]
  5. EUROSTAT. Passenger Cars in the EU; EUROSTAT: Luxembourg, 2019; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained (accessed on 20 April 2020).
  6. Frondelius, K.; Oudin, A.; Malmqvist, E. Traffic-Related Air Pollution and Child BMI—A Study of Prenatal Exposure to Nitrogen Oxides and Body Mass Index in Children at the Age of Four Years in Malmö, Sweden. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 2294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Basri, K.; Sahabuddin, E.S.; Tokan, M. Car pollution measurement (a study on ‘health’ environment). Pollut. Res. 2015, 34, 497–502. [Google Scholar]
  8. Panko, J.; Hitchcock, K.; Fuller, G.; Green, D. Evaluation of Tire Wear Contribution to PM2.5 in Urban Environments. Atmosphere 2019, 10, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Udaeta, M.E.M.; Chaud, C.A.; Gimenes, A.L.V.; Galvao, L.C.R. Electric Vehicles Analysis inside Electric Mobility Looking for Energy Efficient and Sustainable Metropolis. Open J. Energy Effic. 2015, 4, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Thiel, C.; Perujo, A.; Mercier, A. Cost and CO2 aspects of future vehicle options in Europe under new energy policy scenarios. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 7142–7151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Van Vliet, O.; Brouwer, A.S.; Kuramochi, T.; Van Den Broek, M.; Faaij, A. Energy use, cost and CO2 emissions of electric cars. J. Power Sour. 2011, 196, 2298–2310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Abdul-Manan, A.F.N. Uncertainty and differences in GHG emissions between electric and conventional gasoline vehicles with implications for transport policy making. Energy Policy 2015, 87, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mahmoudzadeh Andwari, A.; Pesiridis, A.; Rajoo, S.; Martinez-Botas, R.; Esfahanian, V. A review of Battery Electric Vehicle technology and readiness levels. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 78, 414–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Tran, M.; Banister, D.; Bishop, J.D.K.; McCulloch, M.D. Realizing the electric-vehicle revolution. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2012, 2, 328–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lévay, P.Z.; Drossinos, Y.; Thiel, C. The effect of fiscal incentives on market penetration of electric vehicles: A pairwise comparison of total cost of ownership. Energy Policy 2017, 105, 524–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Campello-Vicente, H.; Peral-Orts, R.; Campillo-Davo, N.; Velasco-Sanchez, E. The effect of electric vehicleson urban noise maps. Appl. Acoust. 2017, 116, 59–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Figenbaum, E.; Assum, T.; Kolbenstvedt, M. Electromobility in Norway: Experiences and Opportunities. Res. Transp. Econ. 2015, 50, 29–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ullah, A.; Aimin, W.; Ahmed, M. Smart automation, customer experience and customer engagement inelectric vehicles. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Coffman, M.; Bernstein, P.; Wee, S. Electric vehicles revisited: A review of factors that affect adoption. Transp. Rev. 2017, 37, 79–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Franke, T.; Rauh, N.; Günther, M.; Trantow, M.; Krems, J.F. Which Factors Can Protect Against Range Stress inEveryday Usage of Battery Electric Vehicles? Toward Enhancing Sustainability of Electric Mobility Systems. Hum. Factors 2016, 58, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Wang, N.; Tang, L.; Pan, H. A global comparison and assessment of incentive policy on electric vehiclepromotion. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 44, 597–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Turcheniuk, K.; Bondarev, D.; Singhal, V.; Yushin, G. Ten years left to redesign lithium-ion batteries. Nature 2018, 559, 467–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Anthony Jnr, B. Applying Enterprise Architecture for Digital Transformation of Electro Mobility towards Sustainable Transportation. In Proceedings of the 2020 on Computers and People Research Conference, Nuremberg, Germany, 19–21 June 2020; pp. 38–46. [Google Scholar]
  24. Anthony Jnr, B.; Petersen, S.A.; Ahlers, D.; Krogstie, J. Big Data Driven Multi-Tier Architecture for Electric Mobility as a Service in Smart Cities; Emerald Group Publishing: Bingley, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Anthony Jnr, B.; Petersen, S.A. A Practice Based Exploration on Electric Mobility as a Service in Smart Cities. In Proceedings of the European, Mediterranean, and Middle Eastern Conference on Information Systems, Dubai, UAE, 9–10 December 2019; pp. 3–17. [Google Scholar]
  26. Alexander, M.; Tonachel, L. Projected Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Plug-in Electric Vehicles. World Electr. Veh. J. 2016, 8, 987–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Zhang, Q.; Mclellan, B.C.; Tezuka, T.; Ishihara, K.N. A methodology for economic and environmental analysis of electric vehicles with different operational conditions. Energy 2013, 61, 118–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. von Brockdorff, P.; Tanti, G. Carbon Emissions of Plug-in Electric Vehicles in Malta: A Policy Review. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2017, 5, 509–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mapou, A.; Shendell, D. Carbon dioxide emissions indirectly generated from U.S. plug-in electric vehicles. In Proceedings of the Climate Change Conference 2013: Impacts, Policy and Regulations, Washington, DC, USA, 9–11 September 2013; pp. 338–342. [Google Scholar]
  30. Ajanovic, A.; Haas, R. On the Environmental Benignity of Electric Vehicles. J. Sustain. Dev. Energy Water Environ. Syst. 2019, 7, 416–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hacker, F.; Harthan, R.; Matthes, F.; Zimmer, W. Environmental Impacts and Impact on the Electricity Market of a Large Scale Introduction of Electric Cars in Europe—Critical Review of Literature; ETC/ACC Technical Paper 2009/4; European Topic Centre on Air and Climate Change: Bilthoven, The Netherlands, 2009; p. 169. [Google Scholar]
  32. Krause, J.; Thiel, C.; Tsokolis, D.; Samaras, Z.; Rota, C.; Ward, A.; Prenniger, P.; Coosemans, T.; Neugebauer, S.; Verhoeve, W. EU road vehicle energy consumption and CO2 emission by 2050—Expert-based scenarios. Energy Policy 2020, 138, 111224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. EUROSTAT. Energy Balance Sheets 2017 Data; EUROSTAT: Luxembourg, 2019; Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents (accessed on 20 April 2020).
  34. Holdway, A.R.; Williams, A.R.; Inderwildi, O.R.; King, D.A. Indirect emissions from electric vehicles: Emissions from electricity generation. Energy Environ. Sci. 2010, 3, 1825–1832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Williams, A.R. Electricity, Mobility and the Neglected Indirect Emissions. In Energy, Transport, & the Environment; Springer: London, UK, 2012; pp. 115–134. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kurien, C.; Srivastava, A.K. Impact of Electric Vehicles on Indirect Carbon Emissions and the Role of Engine Posttreatment Emission Control Strategies. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2020, 16, 234–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Pan, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Cao, Q. Striving for Synthetic Benefits: Is Your Country Suitable for the Widespread Use of Electric Vehicles. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Management and Service Science, Wuhan, China, 12–14 August 2011. [Google Scholar]
  38. Wolfram, P.; Wiedmann, T. Electrifying Australian transport: Hybrid life cycle analysis of a transition to electric light-duty vehicles and renewable electricity. Appl. Energy 2017, 206, 531–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Plewa, F.; Strozik, G. Importance of hard coal in electricity generation in Poland. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 268, 012001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Polish Ministry of Energy (ME). Polityka Energetyczna Polski do 2040 Roku; ME: Warsaw, Poland, 2019.
  41. Ou, X.; Xiaoyu, Y.; Zhang, X. Life-cycle energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions for electricity generation and supply in China. Appl. Energy 2011, 88, 289–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Santoyo-Castelazo, E.; Gujba, H.; Azapagic, A. Life cycle assessment of electricity generation in Mexico. Energy 2011, 36, 1488–1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Brizmohun, R.; Ramjeawon, T.; Azapagic, A. Life cycle assessment of electricity generation in mauritius. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 16, 1727–1734. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Garcia, R.; Marques, P.; Freire, F. Life-cycle assessment of electricity in Portugal. Appl. Energy 2014, 134, 563–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. European Environment Agency (EEA). Air Quality in Europe—2019 Report; EEA: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2019; Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/ (accessed on 15 July 2020).
  46. Car Info Nordic AB. Report from 25 April 2020. Available online: https://www.car.info/en-se (accessed on 25 April 2020).
  47. Jamroz, K.; Wachnicka, J. Macro Models of Vehicle Kilometres Travelled. Logist. Transp. 2015, 27, 17–24. [Google Scholar]
  48. Rentziou, A.; Gkritza, K.; Souleyrette, R. VMT, energy consumption, and GHG emissions forecasting for passenger transportation. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2012, 46, 487–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Polish Ministry of Energy (ME). Information No. 34/2017 on the Rules for Determining the CO2 Emission Level for the Purposes of the Auction Support System Referred to in the Provisions of the Act on Renewable Energy Sources; ME: Warsaw, Poland, 2017.
  50. European Union. Comimission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/2402 of 12 October 2015 Reviewing Harmonized Efficiency Reference Values for Separate Production of Electricity and Heat in Application od Directive 2012/27/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Commission Implementing Decision 2011/877/EU; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  51. KOBiZE (The National Centre for Emissions Management). CO2, SO2, NOx, CO and Total Dust Emissions Factors for Electricity in 2018; KOBiZE: Warsaw, Poland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  52. Ligterink, N.; Eijk, A. Real-World Fuel Consumption of Passenger Cars. In Proceedings of the Transport and Air Pollution Conference, Graz, Austria, 24 September 2014. [Google Scholar]
  53. Vanderheiden, S. Assessing the case against the SUV. Environ. Politics 2006, 15, 23–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Thiel, C.; Tsakalidis, A.; Jäger-Waldau, A. Will Electric Vehicles Be Killed (again) or Are They the Next Mobility Killer App? Energies 2020, 13, 1828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Gelmanova, Z.; Zhabalova, G.; Sivyakova, G.; Lelikova, O.; Onishchenko, O.; Smailova, A.; Kamarova, S. Electric cars. Advantages and disadvantages. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2018, 1015, 052029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Kolarova, V.; Anderson, J.E.; Hardinghaus, M. Indirect CO2 emissions of electric vehicles: Insights from real-world vehicle use. In Proceedings of the 7th Transport Research Arena TRA 2018, Vienna, Austria, 16–19 April 2018. [Google Scholar]
  57. McLaren, J.; Miller, J.; O’Shaughnessy, E.; Wood, E.; Shapiro, E. CO2 emissions associated with electric vehicle charging: The impact of electricity generation mix, charging infrastructure availability and vehicle type. Electr. J. 2016, 29, 72–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Jochem, P.; Babrowski, S.; Fichtner, W. Assessing CO2 emissions of electric vehicles in Germany in 2030. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2015, 78, 68–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Choi, H.; Shin, J.; Woo, J. Effect of electricity generation mix on battery electric vehicle adoption and its environmental impact. Energy Policy 2018, 121, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. IINAS/Öko-Institut e.V, GEMIS 4.94. Emissionsmodell Integrierter Systeme; Software des Öko-Instituts: Freiburg, Germany; IINAS: Darmstadt, Germany, 2015; Report from 15 August 2016; Available online: http://iinas.org/gemis-dokumente.html (accessed on 15 April 2020).
  61. Abdallah, L.; El-Shennawy, T. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions from electricity sector using smart electric grid applications. J. Eng. 2013, 13, 845051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Rievaj, V.; Synák, F. Does electric car produce emissions? Sci. J. Silesian Univ. Technol. Ser. Transp. 2017, 94, 187–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Mann, M.K.; Spath, P.L. The Net CO2 Emissions and Energy Balances of Biomass and Coal-Fired Power Systems. In Proceedings of the Fourth Biomass Conference of the Americas, Oakland, CA, USA, 29 August–2 September 1999; pp. 379–385. [Google Scholar]
  64. Noussan, M.; Roberta, R.; Nastasi, B. Performance Indicators of Electricity Generation at Country Level—The Case of Italy. Energies 2018, 11, 650. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Oria, J.; Madariaga, E.; Ortega, A.; Díaz, E.; Mateo, M. Influence of characteristics of marine auxiliary power system in the energy efficiency design index. J. Maritime Transp. Eng. 2015, 4, 67. [Google Scholar]
  66. Hondo, H. Life cycle GHG emission analysis of power generation systems: Japanese case. Energy 2005, 30, 2042–2056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Macuk, R. Transformacja Energetyczna w Polsce Edycja 2020; Forum Energii: Warsaw, Poland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  68. Knopf, B.; Bakken, B.; Carrara, S.; Kanudia, A.; Keppo, I.; Koljonen, T.; Mima, S.; Schmid, E.; Vuuren, D. Transforming the European Energy System: Member States’ Prospects within the EU Framework. Clim. Chang. Econ. 2013, 4, 1340005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Główny Urząd Statystyczny (GUS). Transport—Wyniki działalności w 2018 roku; GUS: Warsaw, Poland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  70. International Council on Clean Transportation (ICOCT). EU CO2 Emission Standards for Passenger Cars and Light-Commercial Vehicles; ICOCT: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; Available online: https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/ (accessed on 11 April 2020).
  71. Ellingsen, L.A.-W.; Singh, B.; Strømman, A.H. The size and range effect: Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of electric vehicles. Environ. Res. Lett. 2016, 11, 054010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Share of electricity from renewable sources in total electricity generation in EU-27 in 2017 [33].
Figure 1. Share of electricity from renewable sources in total electricity generation in EU-27 in 2017 [33].
Energies 13 04267 g001
Figure 2. Gross electricity production by fuel in Poland [33].
Figure 2. Gross electricity production by fuel in Poland [33].
Energies 13 04267 g002
Figure 3. Daily direct CO2 emissions to the atmosphere associated with the use of a car in the city (distance of 26 km) divided into City, Sedan, and SUV classes.
Figure 3. Daily direct CO2 emissions to the atmosphere associated with the use of a car in the city (distance of 26 km) divided into City, Sedan, and SUV classes.
Energies 13 04267 g003
Figure 4. Carbon dioxide emissions depending on the source of electricity production.
Figure 4. Carbon dioxide emissions depending on the source of electricity production.
Energies 13 04267 g004
Figure 5. Comparison of daily indirect carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere generated by an electric car and direct emissions generated by a conventional car (distance of 26 km): (a) city, (b) sedan, (c) SUV.
Figure 5. Comparison of daily indirect carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere generated by an electric car and direct emissions generated by a conventional car (distance of 26 km): (a) city, (b) sedan, (c) SUV.
Energies 13 04267 g005aEnergies 13 04267 g005b
Figure 6. Change in daily CO2 emissions as a result of replacing ICEs with EVs.
Figure 6. Change in daily CO2 emissions as a result of replacing ICEs with EVs.
Energies 13 04267 g006
Figure 7. Comparison of direct and indirect emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when the energy mix value changes: (a) city, (b) sedan, (c) SUV.
Figure 7. Comparison of direct and indirect emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when the energy mix value changes: (a) city, (b) sedan, (c) SUV.
Energies 13 04267 g007
Table 1. Main case studies in the literature.
Table 1. Main case studies in the literature.
AuthorsAimMethodologyContext
Holdway et al. [34]Analyze indirect CO2 emission related to the source of electricity production and the comparison to direct emissions of the ICE car and Hybrid electric vehicles (HEV).The average CO2 emissions from electricity generation,
Average well-to-wheels CO2 emissions for EV
US, UK and France Case Studies
Williams [35]Analyze indirect CO2 emission related to the source of electricity production and the comparison to direct emissions of the ICE car and Hybrid electric vehicles (HEV).The average CO2 emissions from electricity generation,
Average well-to-wheels CO2 emissions for EV
US, China, Japan, India, Germany, Russia, Brazil, UK, France, Italy, Mexico, South Korea, Spain, Canada, Indonesia Case Studies
Kurien and Srivastava [36]Detailed analysis of the emission threat of EV depending on the scenarios and vehicle categoryAverage CO2 emissions from EV calculated by referencing the electric power consumed by the vehicle per kilometer and the CO2 emissions during electricity generationIndia Case Study
Pan et al. [37]Comprehensive analysis of the widespread use of EVs depending on the electricity sources in a specific countryAGT methodSweden, US, China, France Case Studies
Wolfram and Wiedmann [38]Analysis of the environmental performance of various types of vehicles in terms of GHG reduction depending on the share of renewable energy sourcesLCA methodAustralia Case Study
Table 2. Main car investigated in the research specifications [46].
Table 2. Main car investigated in the research specifications [46].
VehicleEngine PowerFuelCurb WeightMaximum TorqueCO2 EmissionCombined Fuel Consumption
kW kgNmg∙km−1* kWh∙100 km−1 or dm3∙100 km−1
CityMini Cooper D Manual80Diesel11802401043.9
Kia Rio 1.4 CVVT80Gasoline11651371275.5
Renault ZOE R110 41 kWh80Electricity15002250* 15.95
SedanFiat Tipo Station Wagon 1.6 Multijet Manual88Diesel1395300983.7
Mazda 3 Sport 2.0 SKYACTIV-G Manual88Gasoline12002101195.1
Hyundai Ioniq Electric 28 kWh88Electricity14952950* 12.5
SUVKia Sportage 1.6 CRDi AWD DCT100Diesel18253201386.4
Chevrolet Captiva 2.4 Manual100Gasoline16652202178.9
Peugeot e-2008100Electricity15482600* 16.5
* concern EVs (electricity demand per 100 km).
Table 3. WeCO2 coefficient and power plant efficiency depending on the type of fuel combusted [49,50].
Table 3. WeCO2 coefficient and power plant efficiency depending on the type of fuel combusted [49,50].
FuelWeCO2η
kg∙GJ−1%
Non-renewableHard coal95.4844.2
Lignite110.7641.8
Natural gas56.152.5
Diesel74.144.2
Heating oil77.444.2
Municipal waste91.725.0
RenewableBiogas54.642.0
Biomass10025.0
Solar radiation energy030.0
Wind energy030.0
Hydro energy030.0
Table 4. Estimated number of cars, depending on the type of fuel for the city of Warsaw.
Table 4. Estimated number of cars, depending on the type of fuel for the city of Warsaw.
CityVoivodeshipCity PopulationEstimated Number of Cars
DieselGasolineElectric
WarszawaMasovia1,769,529335,848569,939249

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sobol, Ł.; Dyjakon, A. The Influence of Power Sources for Charging the Batteries of Electric Cars on CO2 Emissions during Daily Driving: A Case Study from Poland. Energies 2020, 13, 4267. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13164267

AMA Style

Sobol Ł, Dyjakon A. The Influence of Power Sources for Charging the Batteries of Electric Cars on CO2 Emissions during Daily Driving: A Case Study from Poland. Energies. 2020; 13(16):4267. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13164267

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sobol, Łukasz, and Arkadiusz Dyjakon. 2020. "The Influence of Power Sources for Charging the Batteries of Electric Cars on CO2 Emissions during Daily Driving: A Case Study from Poland" Energies 13, no. 16: 4267. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13164267

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop