- freely available
Sustainability 2019, 11(9), 2690; https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092690
2. Scope of this Study
2.1. Regions for This Study
2.2. Vehicles Assessed in This Study
2.4. The Scope of the Assessment
3. The Calculation at Each Phase of the Life Cycle
3.1. Vehicle Production Phase
3.2. Fuel Production, Fuel Combustion and Electric Power Generation Phase
- The CO2 emission factors of the fuel production in each region were cited from the LCA database ”GaBi”  ; data was referenced from 2013. Each system boundary for gasoline and diesel fuel is from resource extraction up to service stations. The emission factors of the fuels in “GaBi”  are specified with the amount of CO2 emissions by 1 kg fuel [kg-CO2/kg], therefore, the density values of fuel (gasoline: 0.727 kg/L, diesel: 0.828 kg/L)  were used to convert [kg-CO2/L] into [kg-CO2/kg].
- The CO2 emission factors of gasoline and diesel fuel combustion were cited  which were 2.28 kg-CO2/L for gasoline and 2.62 kg-CO2/L for diesel respectively and they were used in all five regions covered by the study. For both gasoline and diesel fuels, the CO2 emission factors of fuel combustion  are 5 to 8 times greater than those of fuel production  which varies from region to region.
- The CO2 emission factors of the electric power generation in each region were cited from ”GaBi”  ; data was referenced from 2013. The system boundary for the electric power generation is from energy resource extraction to transformation of electric energy to low voltage as the grid mix.
- CO2, ICV (FP, FC) = the amount of CO2 emissions in the phase of fuel production and combustion [kg-CO2],
- CFFP = CO2 emission factor of fuel production [kg-CO2/L],
- CFFC = CO2 emission factor of fuel combustion [kg-CO2/L],
- EICV = fuel efficiency of ICV [km/L],
- LD = lifetime driving distance [km].
- CO2, BEV (EG) = the amount of CO2 emissions in the phase of electric power generation [kg-CO2],
- CFEG = CO2 emission factor of electric power generation [kg-CO2/kWh],
- EBEV = Electric efficiency of BEV [km/kWh].
3.3. Maintenance Phase
3.4. End-of-Life (EOL) Phase
4.1. Effects of Lifetime Driving Distance
4.2. Regional Difference of the CO2 Emissions between Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles (ICV) and Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV)
4.3. Effects of the CO2 Emission Factor of Battery Production
5.1. Concern for the Setting of the Lifetime Driving Distance
5.2. Source of the Regional Differences of the CO2 Emissions between ICV and BEV
5.3. Estimation of the CO2 Emission Factor of Battery Production
- This study focused on the regional differences of the CO2 emission on the fuel production, electric power generation, and fuel combustion phase (i.e., vehicle use stage) but the CO2 emission on the vehicle and parts production phase is assumed to be the same for all regions.
- As the Joint Research Centre in the EU mentioned , the reuse and recycling of lithium-ion batteries is important to mitigate the CO2 emissions because it can avoid productions of new materials or parts, but it was out of scope of this study because there are not sufficient data of recycling in each region.
- The CO2 emissions in the use phase were calculated based on the fuel/electricity efficiency values of type approval test in each region. These values can be different from the values by real driving conditions.
- The uncertainty of cited data from references were taken care of in this study, but this study did not holistically perform a sensitivity check to examine which data could change the results widely other than battery production.
Conflicts of Interest
- FIA. Global reduction in CO2 Emissions from Cars: A Consumer’s Perspective—Policy Recommendations for Decision Makers. Available online: https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/global_reduction_in_co2_emissions_from_cars-_a_consumers_perspective_0.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2018).
- 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]
- Mayyas, A.; Omar, M.; Hayajneh, M.; Mayyas, A.R. Vehicle’s lightweight design vs. electrification from life cycle assessment perspective. J. Clean Prod. 2017, 167, 687–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Messagie, M. Life Cycle Analysis of the Climate Impact of Electric Vehicles. European Federation for Transport and Environment AISBL. Available online: https://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publications/TE%20-%20draft%20report%20v04.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2018).
- Ou, X.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, X.; Zhang, Q. Life Cycle GHG of NG-Based Fuel and Electric Vehicle in China. Energies 2013, 6, 2644–2662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Sharma, R.; Manzie, C.; Bessede, M.; Crawford, R.H.; Brear, M.J. Conventional, hybrid and electric vehicles for Australian driving conditions. Part 2: Life cycle CO2-e emissions. Transport. Res. C Emerg. Technol. 2013, 28, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delogu, M.; Del Pero, F.; Pierini, M. Lightweight Design Solutions in the Automotive Field: Environmental Modelling Based on Fuel Reduction Value Applied to Diesel Turbocharged Vehicles. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zackrisson, M.; Avellán, L.; Orlenius, J. Life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles–Critical issues. J. Clean Prod. 2010, 18, 1519–1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Majeau-Bettez, G.; Hawkins, T.R.; Strømman, A.H. Life cycle environmental assessment of lithium-ion and nickel metal hydride batteries for plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 4548–4554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amarakoon, S.; Smith, J.; Segal, B. Application of Life-Cycle Assessment to Nano Scale Technology: Lithium-ion Batteries for Electric Vehicles; United States Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.
- Ellingsen, L.A.W.; Majeau-Bettez, G.; Singh, B.; Srivastava, A.K.; Valøen, L.O.; Strømman, A.H. Life Cycle Assessment of a Lithium-Ion Battery Vehicle Pack. J. Ind. Ecol. 2013, 18, 113–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Itten, R.; Frischknecht, R.; Stucki, M. Life Cycle Inventories of Electricity Mixes and Grid. Paul Scherrer Institut, PSI, Switzerland. Available online: http://esu-services.ch/fileadmin/download/publicLCI/itten-2012-electricity-mix.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2018).
- Peters, J.F.; Baumann, M.; Zimmermann, B.; Braun, J.; Weil, M. The environmental impact of Li-Ion batteries and the role of key parameters—A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 67, 491–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fontaras, G.; Zacharof, N.; Ciuffo, B. Fuel consumption and CO2 emissions from passenger cars in Europe—Laboratory versus real-world emissions. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2015, 60, 97–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Cauwer, C.; Messagie, M.; Heyvaert, S.; Coosemans, T.; Van Mierlo, J. Electric vehicle use and energy consumption based on real-world electric vehicle fleet trip and charge data and its impact on existing EV research models. In Proceedings of the 28th International Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition 2015 (EVS 2015), Goyang, Korea, 3–6 May 2015; pp. 645–655. [Google Scholar]
- EC (European Commission). EU Reference Scenario 2016 Energy, Transport and GHG Emissions: Trends to 2050; EC (European Commission): Luxembourg, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Burnham, A.; Wang, M.; Wu, Y. GREET 2.8 Transportation Vehicle-Cycle Model; Argonne National Laboratory: Argonne, IL, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Yan, X.Y.; Crookes, R.J. Reduction potentials of energy demand and GHG emissions in China’s road transport sector. Energy Policy 2009, 37, 658–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CEC (Commission of the European Communities). Case No COMP/M.1406—HYUNDAI/KIA, REGULATION (EEC) No 4064/89 MERGER PROCEDURE. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m1406_en.pdf (accessed on 9 October 2018).
- Mock, P.; Fuel Economy Labels: Focus on Non-EU Countries. Workshop Material for “GFEI Green Global NCAP Labeling /Green Scoring Workshop” Organized by International Energy Agency. Available online: https://www.iea.org/media/workshops/2013/gfeilabelling/02.ICCT.130430ICCTCO2labelingoutsideEU.pdf (accessed on 9 October 2018).
- Tsiakmakis, S.; Ciuffo, B.; Fontaras, G.; Cubito, C.; Pavlovic, J.; Anagnostopoulos, K. From NEDC to WLTP: Effect on the Type-Approval CO2 Emissions of Light-Duty Vehicles; EUR 28724 EN; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- BMW. Environmental Report BMW i3 BEV. Available online: https://www.bmwgroup.com/content/dam/bmw-group-websites/bmwgroup_com/responsibility/downloads/en/2016/Environmental-report_BMW-i3.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2018).
- Daimler. Environmental Certificate Mercedes-Benz A-Class. Available online: https://www.daimler.com/images/sustainability/produkt/new-enviromentalcertificates/daimler-umweltzertifikat-mb-a-klasse.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2018).
- Audi. The New Audi A3 Life Cycle Assessment. Available online: http://www.audi.nl/content/dam/ngw/company/Corporate_Responsibility/PDF/A3%20Umweltbilanz.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2018).
- Toyota. Environmental Report 2017—Challenge 2 Life Cycle Zero CO2 Emissions Challenge. Available online: https://www.toyota.co.jp/jpn/sustainability/report/archive/er17/pdf/er17_18-21.pdf (accessed on 1 August 2018).
- Mazda. Mazda Sustainability Report 2017—Mazda Green Plan 2020 Mid-term Environmental Plan. Available online: http://www.mazda.com/globalassets/en/assets/csr/download/2017/2017_p057.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2018).
- JLCA (Life Cycle Assessment Society of Japan). LCA Database 2015FY, 4th ed.; JLCA (Life Cycle Assessment Society of Japan): Tokyo, Japan, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Hawkins, T.; Singh, B.; Majeau-Bettez, G.; Strømman, A.H. Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles. J. Ind. Ecol. 2012, 17, 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Thinkstep, A.G. GaBi: Software and Database Contents for Life Cycle Engineering; Thinkstep: Stuttgart, Germany, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Kainou, K. Recommendation of Draft Revised Standard Calorific Value and Carbon Emission Factor for Fossil Fuel Energy Sources in Japan: 2013 FY Revised Standard Calorific Value and Carbon Emission Factor; RIETI (The Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry): Tokyo, Japan, 2014. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar]
- BMW. BMW i3—Features & Specifications—BMW USA. Available online: https://www.bmwusa.com/vehicles/bmwi/bmw-i3/bmw-i3-features-and-specs.html (accessed on 1 August 2018).
- Nissan. Nissan LEAF Range & Charging, Nissan USA. Available online: https://www.nissanusa.com/vehicles/electric-cars/leaf/range-charging.html (accessed on 1 August 2018).
- Volkswagen. Volkswagen Unveils the People First Warranty, the New Industry Leader—Newsroom. 2017. Available online: http://newsroom.vw.com/vehicles/volkswagen-unveils-the-people-first-warranty-the-new-industry-leader (accessed on 1 August 2018).
- Funasaki, A.; Katsunori, T. Life cycle assessment on End-of-life vehicles. J. Soc. Automot. Eng. Jpn. 2002, 56, 57–63. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar]
- Bobba, S.; Podias, A.; Di Persio, F.; Messagie, M.; Tecchio, P.; Cusenza, M.A.; Eynard, U.; Mathieux, F.; Pfrang, A. Sustainability Assessment of Second Life Application of Automotive Batteries (SASLAB): JRC Exploratory Research (2016–2017): Final technical report: August 2018; EUR 29321 EN; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maeda, H.; Moro, T.; Matsuno, Y.; Sagisaka, M.; Inaba, A. Life cycle assessment case study for fuel cell vehicle. J. Adv. Sci. 2001, 13, 285–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toyota. The MIRAI Life Cycle Assessment Report for Communication. Available online: https://global.toyota/pages/global_toyota/sustainability/esg/challenge2050/challenge2/life_cycle_assessment_report_en.pdf (accessed on 18 April 2019).
|Reference||Studied Region||Studied Vehicles||Lifetime Driving Distance [km]||Estimation of Battery Production||Fuel Efficiency/Electric Efficiency||CO2 Emission Factor of Electricity|
|Ellingsen et al. ||Europe||ICV *1 and BEV *2|
from A (mini size) to F (luxury size) segment *3
|180,000||Referring to own earlier study ||ICV: average of actual ICVs (NEDC) *4|
BEV: estimating from the relationship between electric efficiency and weight of actual BEVs
(European average mix )
|—The life cycle Climate Change Potential of the F segment BEV was 1.7 times higher than that of the A segment BEV.|
—The CO2 emissions in the use phase of BEVs became lower when its electricity was coming from energy source of lower CO2 emission factor such as renewables.
|Mayyas et al. ||US||ICV (GE *5, HEV *6, plug-in HEV) and BEV with lightweight technologies||320,000||Referring to some other studies|
(120 kg-CO2- /kWh)
|Estimation from running resistances and energy for driving force, assuming US driving cycle (55 % FTP-75 *7 and 45 % HFET *8)||0.8515|
(US average mix)
|—The life cycle CO2 emissions of BEV and plug-in HEV were region dependent due to regional source of power generation. In the case of the US, HEV showed lower CO2 emissions than BEV and plug-in HEV.|
|Messagie ||European average and each country||ICV, BEV||200,000||Referring to Peters et al. |
(55 kg-CO2- /kWh for LMO battery*2*9)
|ICV: European fleet average, augmented by 35% to reflect real driving conditions based on Fontaras et al. |
BEV: Real driving efficiency based on De Cauwer et al.  (average of BEVs from A to C-segments)
(European average mix )
|—BEVs showed significant lower CO2 emissions, compared to ICV in most European countries.|
|Ou et al. ||China||ICV (GE, DE *10, Natural gas), BEV||240,000||Referring to GREET 2.8 |
(30 kg-CO2- /kWh)
|Referring to some other studies, e.g., 6 L/100 km for GE ||0.539 (by natural gas single cycle)|
0.485 (by natural gas combined cycle)
|—BEV reduces life cycle greenhouse gas emissions by 36%–47% compared to GE.|
|Sharma et al. ||Australia||ICV (GE, HEV, plug-in HEV) and BEV||150,000||Estimation by referring to some other studies||Australian Urban Drive Cycle (AUDC)||1.04 (Australian average mix).||—Regarding larger size vehicles, BEV shows lower greenhouse gas emissions than GE, but higher than HEV and plug-in HEV.|
|Vehicle||Gasoline Engine Vehicle (GE)||Diesel Engine Vehicle (DE)||Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV)|
|Battery capacity [kWh]||-||-||35.8|
|Fuel / Electric efficiency*1||US (5cycle)||13.2 km/L||-||5.75 km/kWh|
|Europe (NEDC)||19.6 km/L||26.3 km/L||7.87 km/kWh|
|Japan (JC08)||19.0 km/L||21.6 km/L||8.06 km/kWh|
|China (NEDC)||16.1 km/L||-||7.87 km/kWh|
|Australia (NEDC)||17.2 km/L||-||7.87 km/kWh|
|Literature||Cathode Type*1||CO2 Emission Factor |
|Zackrisson et al. ||LFP||166|
|Majeau-Bettez et al. ||NMC||200|
|Amarakoon et al. ||NMC||121|
|Ellingsen et al. ||NMC||172|
|Part Name||Reference||Referenced Data of CO2 Emission [kg-CO2]||Apply to|
(Body, tires, interior, etc.)
(76.8 % of overall production)
|GE, DE, BEV|
|Gasoline engine and transmission||JLCA ||1274|
(23.2 % of overall production)
|Diesel engine and transmission||JLCA  modified||1539 (20.8% higher than the gasoline engine)||DE|
|Electric drive unit parts|
|CO2 factor: Average of Table 3|
Capacity: Table 2
(177 kg-CO2/kWh × 35.8 kWh)
|Motor||Hawkins et al. ||1070||BEV|
|Inverter||Hawkins et al. ||641||BEV|
|Part Name||Maintenance Interval|
|Tire||40,000||108||JLCA ||GE, DE, BEV|
|Lead-acid battery||50,000||19.5||JLCA ||GE, DE, BEV|
|Engine oil||10,000||3.22||JLCA ||GE, DE|
|Radiator coolant||27,000||7.03||JLCA ||GE, DE|
|Li-ion battery||160,000||6337||Table 4||BEV|
|Process Name||CO2 Emission [kg-CO2]|
|Shredding and sorting||24|
|Area||DIP [km]||Fuel and Electric Efficiency||Relative Value of CO2 Factor * for Electricity|
|GE [km/L]||BEV [km/kWh]|
|Area||DIP [km]||Fuel and Electric Efficiency||Relative Value of CO2 Factor * for Electricity|
|DE [km/L]||BEV [km/kWh]|
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).