A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of End-of-Life Scenarios for Light Electric Vehicles: A Case Study of an Electric Moped

Abstract

This study analyses the greenhouse gas reduction potential of different end-of-life (EoL) strategies based on a case study of light electric vehicles (LEVs). Using a shared electric moped scooter as a reference, four EoL scenarios are evaluated in a comparative life cycle assessment (LCA). The modelling of the scenarios combines different R-strategies (e.g., recycling, reusing, and repurposing) regarding both the vehicle itself and the battery. German and EU regulations for vehicle and battery disposal are incorporated, as well as EU directives such as the Battery Product Pass. The global warming potential (GWP₁₀₀) of the production and EoL life cycle stages ranges from 644 to 1025 kg CO₂ eq among the four analysed scenarios. Landfill treatment led to the highest GWP₁₀₀, with 1.47 times higher emissions than those of the base scenario (status quo treatment following EU directives), while increasing component reuse and repurposing the battery cells achieved GWP₁₀₀ reductions of 2.8% and 7.8%, respectively. Overall, the importance of implementing sustainable EoL strategies for LEVs is apparent. To achieve this, a product design that facilitates EoL material and component separation is essential as well as the development of political and economic frameworks. This paper promotes enhancing the circularity of LEVs by combining the LCA of EoL strategies with eco-design considerations.

1. Introduction

The transport sector contributes significantly to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions [1]. Over 70% of EU citizens live in urban areas [2] and are responsible for 23% of all European transport GHG emissions [3]. To align with the net-zero emissions goal of the 2050 Scenario, as assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the International Energy Agency has stated that global transport emissions must decline by over 3% annually by 2030. Nevertheless, transport CO₂ emissions rose by 3% worldwide from passenger and cargo activity in 2022 [4]. To reduce transport CO₂ emissions, the International Energy Agency maintains that robust regulations, financial incentives, and significant investments in infrastructure supporting low- and zero-emission vehicle use are essential [4]. LEVs are a key component in meeting environmental challenges of micromobility and can improve the quality of urban living and traffic in comparison to combustion engine vehicles [5,6]. LEVs require less energy for both production and operation and take up less space in traffic and public areas compared to conventional vehicles [7,8]. The effective integration of LEVs into urban transport systems can significantly improve access to public transit and reduce dependence on fuel-powered cars [9,10]. Achieving this requires planning micromobility and public transportation as a cohesive and complementary network, considering their distinct dynamics and the needs of diverse user groups [11], as well as devising restrictive measures for cars [10]. The sustainable integration of LEVs has high relevance, as the worldwide market for micromobility and LEVs is growing [12]. E-scooter sharing, for instance, is expected to experience a worldwide compound annual growth rate of 5.13% between 2025 and 2029 [13].

Numerous LCA studies on electric vehicles (EVs) and LEVs have demonstrated their significant potential to reduce GHG emissions compared to combustion-powered vehicles; on average, electric vehicles emit 133 g CO₂ eq/km, which is ca. 50% less than petrol-powered vehicles (262 g CO₂ eq/km) and ca. 40% less than diesel-powered vehicles (226 g CO₂ eq/km) [14]. These results are supported by the findings of the Research for TRAN Committee on addressing the environmental challenges of battery electric vehicles [15]. Different studies [16,17,18,19,20] have examined both the manufacturing and usage phases in detail, including different charging scenarios (e.g., source of energy, ambient conditions, lifespan, etc.). Nevertheless, different EoL strategies can indirectly influence the production and use phases of product service systems. For example, incorporating reused or recycled components reduces the amount of primary materials needed during production and the ecological impact of these components. The potential benefits of this approach to circularity have been demonstrated in numerous studies assessing the ecological impacts of different EoL strategies [7,8,21]. With the number of EVs in the world market continuously growing, it is important to establish and implement well-defined and innovative EoL strategies, especially for batteries, regarding the limited raw materials they contain [7].

Our study focuses on the following research question: What are the impacts of different EoL scenarios on the GHG balance of LEVs throughout their life cycle? To answer this question, we conducted an LCA using an electric moped scooter (e-moped) modelling different EoL scenarios and applying the circular footprint formula (CFF) as the allocation method. These scenarios are based on current regulations, upcoming directives, and specific information about batteries, such as their composition.

In general, this study contributes both to the scientific discourse concerning the impacts of EoL strategies in the context of circularity and to their effect on product design and policymaking. Our results support the transition toward a circular economy (CE), which emphasises resource efficiency and the closing of resource cycles [22].

End-of-Life and R-Strategies

The end of life (EoL) of a product can be described as the point in its life cycle where the product is no longer used or needed by the initial user [23]. At this point, different EoL strategies can be identified as waste prevention measures to be implemented after disposal [24]. In the context of the CE, so-called R-strategies have received increasing attention. The following R-strategies are defined based on Potting et al.’s classification of nine R-strategies, ranging from Refuse (R0) to Recover (R9) [25]:

• Refuse (R0): Make product redundant by abandoning its function or by offering the same function with a radically different product.
• Rethink (R1): Make product use more intensive (e.g., through sharing products or by putting multi-functional products on the market).
• Reduce (R2): Increase efficiency in product manufacture or use by consuming fewer natural resources and materials.
• Reuse (R3): Reuse of a discarded product that remains in good condition and fulfils its original function.
• Repair (R4): Repair and maintain a defective product to be used for its original function.
• Refurbish (R5): Restore an old product and update it.
• Remanufacture (R6): Use parts of a discarded product in a new product with the same function.
• Repurpose (R7): Use a discarded product or part of it in a new product with a different function.
• Recycle (R8): Process materials to obtain the same (high-grade) or lower (low-grade) quality.
• Recover (R9): Incinerate materials with energy recovery.

Whereas Reuse and Repurpose aim to extend the lifetime of a product or its parts, Recycle and Recover focus on the useful application of materials and resources. In general, the application of these and other R-strategies (e.g., Repair, Refurbish, Reduce, Rethink) increases the circularity of product systems and enables the transition from a linear to a circular economy [25]. However, it is important to note that Potting’s classification ranks the strategies according to their application priority. This means that the R0 strategy should, whenever possible, be implemented before the R1 strategy. Consequently, the Recover (R9) strategy should be applied only after all other R-strategies have been considered, as it represents one of the least preferred options in terms of circularity.

For this study, R-strategies R0–R2 are not considered, as they do not play a direct role in EoL treatment and are primarily concerned with the product’s use or manufacturing stage [25]. Strategies R3–R6 are all based on the principle of reusing components of the product to varying degrees while preserving its original function [25]. Following the circularity hierarchy of [25], Strategy R3 was selected for this study. To propose approaches aligned with the Battery Passport directive [26], R-strategy R7 is also implemented in this work. Finally, R-strategies R8 and R9 are part of the status quo of many current EoL treatments and are likewise considered in this study.

2. Materials and Methods

In this section, the use case of a shared e-moped is first presented, providing a broad overview of the regarded scenarios. Following this, the applied life cycle assessment (LCA) method is described concerning its application in the present study.

2.1. Use Case: Shared E-Moped

This study analyses current and alternative EoL scenarios using a shared e-moped in Germany as a case study. E-mopeds are defined by the EU as “two-wheeled motor vehicles with design-related top speed of up to 45 km/h and displacement […] up to 4 kW for electric motors” [27]. Shared e-mopeds have been defined in [16] as “the shared use of electric moped scooters, where operators enable customers to rent scooters for a short term directly through a smartphone application.”. According to the usage data of shared e-mopeds [16], an average distance of 4.9 km per ride, an average number of 3.7 trips per day per e-moped, an average distance of 18.1 km per e-moped per day, and an average ride time of 16.7 min per trip were assumed. E-moped sharing services include possible repair and maintenance measures as well as battery swapping and charging. The e-moped model Kumpan 1954Ri and related data provided by the original equipment manufacturer e-bility GmbH (Remagen, Germany) were primarily used for this case study. Furthermore, the collection and treatment pathways of shared e-mopeds in Germany were considered.

Currently, the legal framework regarding the disposal regulations for motorcycles in Germany and the EU remains unclear [28]. The analysed e-moped falls under the L1e-B class vehicle and has an EU type-approval requirement [29]. For this reason, its EoL treatment, unlike that of smaller LEVs like e-scooters and e-bikes, does not fall under the directive regarding waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) [30]. In Germany, vehicles reaching their EoL are typically taken to a certified dismantling company, which removes specific components for recycling or reuse before the remainder is sent to a shredding facility for further processing [31,32]. Although e-mopeds lack EoL regulations in the EU [28] and are not specifically mentioned in EoL vehicle regulations, the analysed e-moped was commonly treated accordingly to the practices [31,33] by a German sharing operator which uses the same e-moped model of this study (Kumpan 1954Ri) (https://evo-sharing.ruhr/, accessed on 30 April 2025). Therefore, these directives comprised a possible framework representing EoL regulations for the e-moped and were the basis for defining the e-moped’s EoL status quo.

To compare the GHG reduction potential of different combinations of these EoL treatments, four scenarios are analysed in this study. Here, these scenarios are described generally, while Section 2.2.2 provides a detailed depiction with the exact shares of components and materials considered for the different EoL strategies:

• 1 Base Scenario: This scenario represents the status quo EoL treatment in Germany and functions as a baseline. Here, regulations for the EoL vehicles [31] and EoL batteries [33], as well as current treatment rates [34], are considered. We capture the current treatment as focused on recycling, considering minor shares for reuse and some components for incineration and landfill.
• 2 Component Reuse: Compared to the defined status quo, this alternative EoL scenario investigates the GHG reduction potential by selecting a higher share of components for reuse, compared to current treatment rates [34].
• 3 Battery Repurpose: To consider alternative scenarios aligned with proposed EoL strategies such as the Battery Pass directive [26], repurposing battery cells into a stationary energy storage system is investigated.
• 4 Landfill: To represent a negative disposal scenario due to insufficient regulations, the disposal via a commercial waste landfill facility is modelled.

2.2. Life Cycle Assessment

To assess the GHG reduction potential of different EoL options for a shared e-moped, a scenario-based LCA was performed per ISO standards 14040 and 14044 [35,36]. In this framework, the LCA procedure was standardised as the interplay of the four mutually dependent steps: goal and scope definition, life cycle inventory (LCI), life cycle impact assessment (LCIA), and interpretation [35,36]. The goal and scope definition encompasses the origin and aim of the analysis and clarifies assumptions about the product system to be examined, the functional unit (FU), system boundaries, and other parameters. On this basis, all relevant processes and input–output data collected are systematically displayed in the LCI phase. In the following LCIA step, one or more impact categories are selected, the results of the LCI are assigned to the impact categories, and the respective values within the impact categories are calculated. Finally, the results of the assessment are interpreted (e.g., by identifying hotspots or by deriving practical implications).

Additionally, the CFF of the European Commission was applied. The formula enables the LCI modelling of primary and secondary material input, as well as the modelling of disposal, energy recovery, and recycling at a product’s EoL [37]. Allocating the burdens and credits of the recycling process was carried out using the CFF, which considers market realities through an allocation factor, allowing a material-specific distribution of credits and burdens within the considered system boundaries [37]. This allows for more flexible LCI modelling compared to other allocation methods, such as simple cut-off (100/0 method) or allocation to material losses (0/100 method), where all burdens and credits are given to one system [38].

A detailed depiction of the CFF and exemplary implementation is provided in Appendix A.

In cases where components of the FU are reused, the LCI was modelled by considering the number of reuses in the production and EoL phases of the FU [37]. To reflect the life extension of the components, the number of reuse cycles was set to two, considering the first and second uses [21]. In other words, the weight of the reused component was divided by the number of reuse cycles in all involved processes, from production to EoL.

Moreover, the system boundary regarding the repurposing of components was modelled after [39], where credits are given in the form of the burdens that the product system of the new application would have caused without the implementation of repurposed components. Burdens were calculated as the emissions caused by the product system with repurposed components.

The individual processes were modelled in the software LCA for Experts (Version 10.9.1.10), selecting country-specific processes [40]. When necessary, additional ecoinvent datasets [41] and processes from secondary literature were used. A detailed list of the used processes is visible in tabular form in Section 2.2.2.

2.2.1. Goal and Scope

The goal of this LCA was to analyse the environmental impact of the current EoL treatment of a shared e-moped and investigate further GHG reduction potentials of alternative EoL paths. The results of this study will help to evaluate the potential contribution of different e-moped EoL treatments to the emission reduction targets in the mobility sector.

To assess the different companies’ GHG balances when implementing different EoL strategies, the global warming potential over 100 years (GWP₁₀₀) was used as the impact category, measured in kg CO₂ eq [42]. For the LCIA, we used the CML method (version 2016) as the method of impact assessment [43].

The FU we considered was one shared e-moped with a lifespan of 50,000 km [16]. The main differences between assessing a shared e-moped versus a privately owned e-moped lie in the modelling of replacements. According to [16], 1.25 batteries are needed to reach the established 50,000 km lifespan for the e-moped. Modelling a fraction of the battery only makes sense when the remaining 0.75 battery can be used and allocated to another e-moped in the sharing fleet. When analysing privately owned e-mopeds, the battery number would be set to two. Furthermore, the e-moped collection was modelled on the experience of sharing operators. Data from privately owned e-mopeds were not included.

Figure 1 provides a depiction of the product system, including the system boundaries of the conducted LCA. The use phase was not considered, as there is no difference in the use phase among the analysed scenarios, and the manufacturer’s impact is minimal in this phase [21]. The production phase, including components replaced during the use phase to achieve the e-moped’s defined lifespan, was considered based on a previous LCA study on e-mopeds [16]. The EoL treatment is illustrated between the system boundary and its extension, since not all burdens are allocated to the system boundary when applying the CCF [37]. Credits were given for the recycling of materials, energy recovery from incineration and landfill, and the reuse or repurposing of components. A detailed depiction of the treatments for components and materials of the RVB and the battery appears in the LCI section.

2.2.2. Life Cycle Inventory

The following life cycle inventory provides information regarding the production phase and the different EoL scenarios. The upstream transport emissions were included in the production phase, and the transport emissions related to the disposal and EoL treatment were included in the EoL phase.

To model the production phase (cradle-to-gate) of the e-moped and all its components, all LCI data—including material production, manufacturing processes, and transport routes—were taken from [16]. Given that the LCI data from [16] were supplied by the manufacturer and pertained to a real-world application, their quality was regarded as high. However, as these data were very specific, the transferability of data quality to other regional or production conditions could not be assumed. A detailed breakdown of the material composition and its corresponding contribution to the total environmental impacts is provided in [16].

To model the EoL phase of the different scenarios, secondary data from industry and literature were used. This study analysed the status quo and the possibility of alternative EoL options in Germany; therefore, it was assumed that the shared e-moped reached its EoL in Germany. Proposed alternative scenarios were aligned with the waste hierarchy directive as well as with EoL strategies stated by the Battery Pass directive, such as the reuse and repurposing of batteries [30,44]. In general, as in the modelling of the different EoL scenarios, processes were used that were specific to Germany and Europe (see Table 1, Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4), and these data only allowed evaluations in respective European regions. Transferability to other regional and technical contexts must be considered in further discussions and with regard to other data sets.

The EoL section of this study consists of the four models shown in Figure 2. Additionally, Figure 3 provides a comparison of the proportions by weight of the FUs treated in the different EoL strategies in their respective scenarios. In the case of treatment through recycling, the percentages given in Figure 3 indicate how much weight in percent was selected to be recycled and not the percentage of effectively recycled material after EoL. EoL treatments such as incinerating or landfilling complete vehicles or their batteries are prohibited by EU regulations [31,33]. Scenario 4 was modelled to represent a worst-case scenario of improper disposal, since e-moped disposal still lacks concrete regulations.

In general, it was assumed that the e-moped that reached its EoL was collected by the sharing operators before being transported to further treatment facilities. The distance and vehicle type for the collection were taken from [16]. Furthermore, we considered that the e-moped was transported 100 km before reaching a recycling or incineration plant via a EURO 4 truck (>32 t). To reach a landfill facility, a 30 km distance was assumed [37]. To compare the different scenarios, the energy used in the respective EoL treatments was considered. The energy necessary to separate components at the dismantling facility is marginal (e.g., using a handheld electric screwdriver) and was not modelled in the LCA [45].

For a better understanding, the LCI for each EoL scenario is described in detail below.

• Scenario 1: Base Scenario

To model the status quo of the EoL treatment for LEVs in Germany, the EU directives on the EoL of vehicles and waste batteries were considered [31,33]. According to German and EU regulations, at least 85%wt of each vehicle must be recycled or reused, and at least 95%wt must receive a overall treatment (e.g., energy recovery), excluding landfill [31,46]. Following EU regulations, the entire battery must be recycled [33].

To represent the current weight percentages per treatment [34], the tires and large plastic components were assumed to be dismantled for recycling, while the two rims were reused [31]. To reflect the life extension of the components, the number of reuse cycles was set to two, considering the first and second uses [21].

Dismantled components are sent to the corresponding recycling facilities, and the RVB is sent to the shredding facility [32,34]. Plastic sorting by infra-red sensors was assumed, where black plastic fragments are not recognised and subsequently incinerated [32]. The RVB is shredded, resulting in three different fractions: steel, non-ferrous metals, and the shredder light fraction (SLF). The SLF is partially incinerated and landfilled [32].

All components of the battery housing, as well as the printed circuit board and cables, were assumed to be recycled through specific processes [40,41]. Battery cells undergo a combination of pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgical treatments that represent the common battery recycling process in Europe [47]. For this, the recycling process for battery cells modelled by [48] was used and adjusted to reflect the present cathode composition of this study: 60% nickel, 20% manganese, and 20% cobalt (NMC₆₂₂). Table 1 shows all the processes used to model the LCI of the EoL phase.

Table 1. Detailed overview of EoL treatments for the respective materials and components in Scenario 1 and depiction of the EoL process used in the LCA model.

Material/Component	Weight [kg]	Weight Share [%]	Treatment	End-of-Life Process
Remaining Vehicle Body (RVB): 106.89 kg
Steel	40.71	38.1	Recycle	DE: Car shredder * [40]
Plastics	31.35	29.3	Recycle	RER: Plastic granulate secondary * [40]
	7.82	7.3	Incineration	DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
	3.85	3.6	Landfill	DE: Car shredder *, RER: Commercial waste in landfill [40]
	1.76	1.7	Incineration	DE: Car shredder *, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
Aluminium	12.18	11.4	Recycle	DE: Car shredder *, RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot [40]
	4.48	4.2	Recycle after Reuse: 50%wt	DE: Car shredder *, RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot [40]
Stainless Steel	1.76	1.6	Recycle	DE: Car shredder * [40]
PCB	1.10	1	Incineration	DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
Cables	0.61	<1	Landfill	DE: Car shredder *, RER: Commercial waste in landfill [40]
	0.28	<1	Incineration	DE: Car shredder *, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
	0.1	<1	Incineration after Reuse: 50%wt	DE: Car shredder *, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
Copper	0.67	<1	Recycle	DE: Car shredder * [40]
Rest	0.07	<1	Incineration	DE: Car shredder *, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
	0.15	<1	Landfill	DE: Car shredder *, RER: Commercial waste in landfill [40]
Battery: 12.25 kg
Battery cells	8.05	65.5	Recycle	Cell Recycling * [48]
Aluminium	2.36	19.2	Recycle	DE: Car shredder *, RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot [40]
Cable	1.09	8.9	Recycle	Shredder fraction after manual dismantling of used electronic product [41], RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
Plastics	0.55	4.5	Recycle	RER: Plastic granulate secondary * [40]
Steel	0.12	1	Recycle	DE: Car shredder * [40]
PCB	0.08	<1	Recycle	Shredder fraction after manual dismantling of used electronic product [41], RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]

* Modified process to match specific material composition.

Table 1. Detailed overview of EoL treatments for the respective materials and components in Scenario 1 and depiction of the EoL process used in the LCA model.

Material/Component	Weight [kg]	Weight Share [%]	Treatment	End-of-Life Process
Remaining Vehicle Body (RVB): 106.89 kg
Steel	40.71	38.1	Recycle	DE: Car shredder * [40]
Plastics	31.35	29.3	Recycle	RER: Plastic granulate secondary * [40]
	7.82	7.3	Incineration	DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
	3.85	3.6	Landfill	DE: Car shredder *, RER: Commercial waste in landfill [40]
	1.76	1.7	Incineration	DE: Car shredder *, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
Aluminium	12.18	11.4	Recycle	DE: Car shredder *, RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot [40]
	4.48	4.2	Recycle after Reuse: 50%wt	DE: Car shredder *, RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot [40]
Stainless Steel	1.76	1.6	Recycle	DE: Car shredder * [40]
PCB	1.10	1	Incineration	DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
Cables	0.61	<1	Landfill	DE: Car shredder *, RER: Commercial waste in landfill [40]
	0.28	<1	Incineration	DE: Car shredder *, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
	0.1	<1	Incineration after Reuse: 50%wt	DE: Car shredder *, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
Copper	0.67	<1	Recycle	DE: Car shredder * [40]
Rest	0.07	<1	Incineration	DE: Car shredder *, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
	0.15	<1	Landfill	DE: Car shredder *, RER: Commercial waste in landfill [40]
Battery: 12.25 kg
Battery cells	8.05	65.5	Recycle	Cell Recycling * [48]
Aluminium	2.36	19.2	Recycle	DE: Car shredder *, RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot [40]
Cable	1.09	8.9	Recycle	Shredder fraction after manual dismantling of used electronic product [41], RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
Plastics	0.55	4.5	Recycle	RER: Plastic granulate secondary * [40]
Steel	0.12	1	Recycle	DE: Car shredder * [40]
PCB	0.08	<1	Recycle	Shredder fraction after manual dismantling of used electronic product [41], RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]

* Modified process to match specific material composition.

• Scenario 2: Component Reuse

In this scenario, the e-moped’s main rack was additionally considered for reuse, as it is made from rigid material and is more protected from natural wear than other components. For the battery, all parts of the housing carrying the battery cells were assumed to be reused, since the battery is located within the e-moped and is more protected. The transport routes remained analogous to Scenario 1, varying only in the transported load. Overall, the selected components accounted for 19%wt of the RVB and 25%wt for the battery. Table 2 shows all processes used to model the LCI of the EoL segment in Scenario 2.

Table 2. Detailed overview of EoL treatments for the respective materials and components in Scenario 2 and depiction of the EoL process used in the LCA model.

Material/Component	Weight [kg]	Weight Share [%]	Treatment	End-of-Life Process
Remaining Vehicle Body (RVB): 106.89 kg
Steel	25.2	23.6	Recycle	DE: Car shredder * [40]
	15.5	14.5	Recycle after Reuse: 50%wt	DE: Car shredder * [40]
Plastics	31.35	29.3	Recycle	RER: Plastic granulate secondary * [40]
	7.82	7.3	Incineration	DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
	3.85	3.6	Landfill	DE: Car shredder *, RER: Commercial waste in landfill [40]
	1.76	1.7	Incineration	DE: Car shredder *, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
Aluminium	12.18	11.4	Recycle	DE: Car shredder *, RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot [40]
	4.48	4.2	Recycle after Reuse: 50%wt	DE: Car shredder *, RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot [40]
Stainless Steel	1.76	1.6	Recycle	DE: Car shredder * [40]
PCB	1.10	1	Incineration	DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
Cables	0.61	<1	Landfill	DE: Car shredder *, RER: Commercial waste in landfill [40]
	0.28	<1	Incineration	DE: Car shredder *, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
	0.1	<1	Incineration after Reuse: 50% wt	DE: Car shredder *, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
Copper	0.67	<1	Recycle	DE: Car shredder * [40]
Rest	0.07	<1	Incineration	DE: Car shredder * [40], DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
	0.15	<1	Landfill	DE: Car shredder *, RER: Commercial waste in landfill [40]
Battery: 12.25 kg
Battery cells	8.05	65.5	Recycle	Cell Recycling * [48]
Aluminium	2.36	19.2	Recycle after Reuse: 50%wt	DE: Car shredder *, RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot [40]
Cable	1.09	8.9	Recycle	Shredder fraction after manual dismantling of used electronic product [41], RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
Plastics	0.55	4.5	Recycle after Reuse: 50%wt	RER: Plastic granulate secondary * [40]
Steel	0.12	1	Recycle after Reuse: 50%wt	DE: Car shredder * [40]
PCB	0.08	<1	Recycle	Shredder fraction after manual dismantling of used electronic product [41], RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]

* Modified process to match specific material composition.

Table 2. Detailed overview of EoL treatments for the respective materials and components in Scenario 2 and depiction of the EoL process used in the LCA model.

Material/Component	Weight [kg]	Weight Share [%]	Treatment	End-of-Life Process
Remaining Vehicle Body (RVB): 106.89 kg
Steel	25.2	23.6	Recycle	DE: Car shredder * [40]
	15.5	14.5	Recycle after Reuse: 50%wt	DE: Car shredder * [40]
Plastics	31.35	29.3	Recycle	RER: Plastic granulate secondary * [40]
	7.82	7.3	Incineration	DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
	3.85	3.6	Landfill	DE: Car shredder *, RER: Commercial waste in landfill [40]
	1.76	1.7	Incineration	DE: Car shredder *, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
Aluminium	12.18	11.4	Recycle	DE: Car shredder *, RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot [40]
	4.48	4.2	Recycle after Reuse: 50%wt	DE: Car shredder *, RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot [40]
Stainless Steel	1.76	1.6	Recycle	DE: Car shredder * [40]
PCB	1.10	1	Incineration	DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
Cables	0.61	<1	Landfill	DE: Car shredder *, RER: Commercial waste in landfill [40]
	0.28	<1	Incineration	DE: Car shredder *, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
	0.1	<1	Incineration after Reuse: 50% wt	DE: Car shredder *, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
Copper	0.67	<1	Recycle	DE: Car shredder * [40]
Rest	0.07	<1	Incineration	DE: Car shredder * [40], DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
	0.15	<1	Landfill	DE: Car shredder *, RER: Commercial waste in landfill [40]
Battery: 12.25 kg
Battery cells	8.05	65.5	Recycle	Cell Recycling * [48]
Aluminium	2.36	19.2	Recycle after Reuse: 50%wt	DE: Car shredder *, RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot [40]
Cable	1.09	8.9	Recycle	Shredder fraction after manual dismantling of used electronic product [41], RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
Plastics	0.55	4.5	Recycle after Reuse: 50%wt	RER: Plastic granulate secondary * [40]
Steel	0.12	1	Recycle after Reuse: 50%wt	DE: Car shredder * [40]
PCB	0.08	<1	Recycle	Shredder fraction after manual dismantling of used electronic product [41], RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]

* Modified process to match specific material composition.

• Scenario 3: Battery Repurpose

This scenario focuses on alternatives for the battery, as it exhibits one of the highest environmental impacts per weight in production [16]. The treatment of the RVB remained the same as in Scenario 1.

Automotive batteries generally reach the EoL when the state of health (SoH) of the battery cells approaches 80% [49]. Although batteries with an SoH < 80% cannot be reused within automotive applications, implementation in stationary applications demonstrates environmental emissions reductions as well as economic feasibility [39,50]. Furthermore, technical feasibility has also been proven; for instance, by repurposing second-life vehicle batteries as a storage solution for energy surplus from a wind farm [51].

A 50% cell recovery rate assumption was applied in this study, after [8,39]. In this scenario, 50% of the cells and the rest of the components were treated as in Scenario 1. The remaining 50% of the cells were repurposed into a home storage system (HSS) with an NMC₆₂₂ battery, after [52].

Given that each battery pack of the analysed e-moped has a capacity of 1.497 kWh, and an SoH of 80% and a 50% cell recovery rate were assumed, the cells eligible for repurposing provide 0.7485 kWh of capacity. Consequently, the required NMC₆₂₂ cell production was modelled to achieve a total required capacity of 14.4 kWh for the HSS, according to [52]. Furthermore, the environmental impact of the remaining components in the HSS, such as the battery management system, inverter, and housing, was adopted from [52].

In this scenario, the system boundary was extended to account for credits from the avoided product system, following [39]. To represent the avoided environmental impact, a first-life HSS with an NMC₆₂₂ battery, including the burdens and credits of the production, use phase, and EoL, was modelled after [52]. To represent the burdens of the second-life HSS, the same model based on [52] was used, nevertheless accounting for fewer battery cells at the production phase because some were repurposed from the shared e-moped. Table 3 shows the implemented processes of the modelled LCI of the EoL phase of Scenario 3.

Table 3. Detailed overview of EoL treatments for respective materials and components in Scenario 3 and depiction of the EoL process used in the LCA model.

Material/Component	Weight [kg]	Weight Share [%]	Treatment	End-of-Life Process
Remaining Vehicle Body (RVB): 106.89 kg
Steel	40.71	38.1	Recycle	DE: Car shredder * [40]
Plastics	31.35	29.3	Recycle	RER: Plastic granulate secondary * [40]
	7.82	7.3	Incineration	DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
	3.85	3.6	Landfill	DE: Car shredder *, RER: Commercial waste in landfill [40]
	1.76	1.7	Incineration	DE: Car shredder *, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
Aluminium	12.18	11.4	Recycle	DE: Car shredder *, RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot [40]
	4.48	4.2	Recycle after Reuse: 50% wt	DE: Car shredder *, RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot [40]
Stainless Steel	1.76	1.6	Recycle	DE: Car shredder * [40]
PCB	1.10	1	Incineration	DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
Cables	0.61	<1	Landfill	DE: Car shredder *, RER: Commercial waste on landfill [40]
	0.28	<1	Incineration	DE: Car shredder *, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
	0.1	<1	Incineration after Reuse: 50% wt	DE: Car shredder *, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
Copper	0.67	<1	Recycle	DE: Car shredder * [40]
Rest	0.07	<1	Incineration	DE: Car shredder *, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
	0.15	<1	Landfill	DE: Car shredder *, RER: Commercial waste in landfill [40]
Battery: 12.25 kg
Battery cells	4.03	32.75	Recycling	Cell Recycling * [48]
	4.03	32.75	Repurpose	Battery home storage system Cradle–Grave [52]
Aluminium	2.36	19.2	Recycling	DE: Car shredder *, RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot [40]
Cable	1.09	8.9	Recycling	Shredder fraction after manual dismantling of used electronic product [41], RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
Plastics	0.55	4.5	Recycling	RER: Plastic granulate secondary * [40]
Steel	0.12	1	Recycling	DE: Car shredder * [40]
PCB	0.08	<1	Recycling	Shredder fraction after manual dismantling of used electronic product [41], RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]

* Modified process to match specific material composition.

Table 3. Detailed overview of EoL treatments for respective materials and components in Scenario 3 and depiction of the EoL process used in the LCA model.

Material/Component	Weight [kg]	Weight Share [%]	Treatment	End-of-Life Process
Remaining Vehicle Body (RVB): 106.89 kg
Steel	40.71	38.1	Recycle	DE: Car shredder * [40]
Plastics	31.35	29.3	Recycle	RER: Plastic granulate secondary * [40]
	7.82	7.3	Incineration	DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
	3.85	3.6	Landfill	DE: Car shredder *, RER: Commercial waste in landfill [40]
	1.76	1.7	Incineration	DE: Car shredder *, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
Aluminium	12.18	11.4	Recycle	DE: Car shredder *, RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot [40]
	4.48	4.2	Recycle after Reuse: 50% wt	DE: Car shredder *, RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot [40]
Stainless Steel	1.76	1.6	Recycle	DE: Car shredder * [40]
PCB	1.10	1	Incineration	DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
Cables	0.61	<1	Landfill	DE: Car shredder *, RER: Commercial waste on landfill [40]
	0.28	<1	Incineration	DE: Car shredder *, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
	0.1	<1	Incineration after Reuse: 50% wt	DE: Car shredder *, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
Copper	0.67	<1	Recycle	DE: Car shredder * [40]
Rest	0.07	<1	Incineration	DE: Car shredder *, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
	0.15	<1	Landfill	DE: Car shredder *, RER: Commercial waste in landfill [40]
Battery: 12.25 kg
Battery cells	4.03	32.75	Recycling	Cell Recycling * [48]
	4.03	32.75	Repurpose	Battery home storage system Cradle–Grave [52]
Aluminium	2.36	19.2	Recycling	DE: Car shredder *, RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot [40]
Cable	1.09	8.9	Recycling	Shredder fraction after manual dismantling of used electronic product [41], RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]
Plastics	0.55	4.5	Recycling	RER: Plastic granulate secondary * [40]
Steel	0.12	1	Recycling	DE: Car shredder * [40]
PCB	0.08	<1	Recycling	Shredder fraction after manual dismantling of used electronic product [41], RNA: Secondary aluminium ingot, DE: Commercial waste in municipal waste incineration plant [40]

* Modified process to match specific material composition.

• Scenario 4: Complete Landfill

In this scenario, improper disposal of the entire e-moped and its replaced components through treatment in a landfill facility for commercial waste was assumed. Table 4 shows the incineration process used to model the LCI of the EoL segment of this scenario.

Table 4. Detailed overview of EoL treatments for respective materials and components in Scenario 4 and depiction of the EoL process used in the LCA model.

Material/Component	Weight [kg]	Weight Share [%]	Treatment	End-of-Life Process
e-mopped and replacements	119.14	100	Landfill	RER: Commercial waste in landfill [40]

Table 4. Detailed overview of EoL treatments for respective materials and components in Scenario 4 and depiction of the EoL process used in the LCA model.

Material/Component	Weight [kg]	Weight Share [%]	Treatment	End-of-Life Process
e-mopped and replacements	119.14	100	Landfill	RER: Commercial waste in landfill [40]

3. Results

In this section, the results of the LCIA are presented. Depending on the different assessed scenarios, the gross GWP₁₀₀ per FU varied between 1025.15 and 644.02 kg CO₂ eq. Figure 4 shows the GWP₁₀₀ per FU of the production phase, including emissions from material extraction, manufacturing processes, and transportation, as well as the EoL phase for each scenario. The base scenario (Scenario 1) resulted in a gross GWP₁₀₀ of 698.69 kg CO₂ eq, in which the production accounted for 907.02 kg CO₂ eq and a credit of −208.33 kg CO₂ eq for the EoL was considered.

Table 5. GWP₁₀₀ results for production and end-of-life (EoL) strategies for the analysed scenarios.

	Scenario 1: Base Scenario	Scenario 2: Component Reuse	Scenario 3: Battery Repurpose	Scenario 4: Landfill
Production Total	907.02 kg CO2 eq
E-moped Production	800.51 kg CO2 eq
Replacement Production	106.51 kg CO2 eq
EoL Total	−208.33 kg CO2 eq	−227.68 kg CO2 eq	−263.00 kg CO2 eq	118.14 kg CO2 eq
EoL Recycling	−181.56 kg CO2 eq	−165.76 kg CO2 eq	−181.02 kg CO2 eq	–
EoL Reuse	−43.81 kg CO2 eq	−78.87 kg CO2 eq	−43.80 kg CO2 eq	–
EoL Repurpose	–	–	−55.22 kg CO2 eq	–
EoL Incineration	10.96 kg CO2 eq	10.96 kg CO2 eq	10.96 kg CO2 eq	–
EoL Landfill	4.51 kg CO2 eq	4.51 kg CO2 eq	4.51 kg CO2 eq	116.71 kg CO2 eq
EoL Transport	1.57 kg CO2 eq	1.48 kg CO2 eq	1.57 kg CO2 eq	1.43 kg CO2 eq
Total	698.69 kg CO2 eq	679.32 kg CO2 eq	644.02 kg CO2 eq	1025.15 kg CO2 eq

shows a detailed depiction of the calculated GWP₁₀₀ values for the production and EoL phases. The production included the processes shown in Figure 1 and was divided into the production of the e-moped, which included the battery and the RVB, and the production of the replacements, which included a 0.25 battery and four sets of tires.

Compared to Scenario 1, increasing the number of reused components (Scenario 2) from 4.3%wt to 19%wt for the RVB and from 0%wt to 25%wt for the battery reduced the GWP₁₀₀ by 2.8%, while repurposing the battery (Scenario 3) reduced the GWP₁₀₀ by 7.8%. Improperly disposing of the e-moped (Scenario 4) caused 1.47 times higher CO₂ eq emissions than Scenario 1.

As the EoL stage deviated among the scenarios, Figure 5 illustrates the composition of the GWP₁₀₀ of the EoL stage for each scenario. We thereby differentiated between EoL transport and EoL treatment. The treatment was split up into landfill, incineration, recycling, reuse, and repurpose. While Figure 3 illustrates how the treatments were distributed by mass, Figure 5 illustrates the GWP₁₀₀ resulting from the respective treatment. Allocation factors and further parameters and calculation approaches (see Section 2.2.2) were considered in determining these values.

The first EoL option (base scenario) resulted in −208.33 kg CO₂ eq. As shown in Figure 5, recycling contributed −181.56 kg CO₂ eq (the main contributor to the credit), followed by −43.81 kg CO₂ eq through the reuse treatment. Incineration and landfill accounted for emissions of 10.96 and 4.51 kg CO₂ eq to the GWP₁₀₀ of the EoL.

Table 6. Scenario 1: Recovered recycled material, GWP₁₀₀ emissions, and GWP₁₀₀ emissions per recovered material. RVB = Remaining vehicle body, ABS = acrylonitrile butadiene styrene, SBR = styrene butadiene rubber, PP = polypropylene, PTFE = polytetrafluoroethylene.

Material	Recovered Weight [kg]	Total GWP100 [kg CO2 eq]	Relative GWP100 [kg CO2 eq/1 kg Recovered Material]
	RVB
aluminium	14.97	−69.49	−4.64
stainless steel	1.74	−7.63	−4.37
copper	0.66	−1.60	−2.41
ABS	5.36	−7.73	−1.44
SBR	18.00	−24.87	−1.38
steel	40.30	−54.65	−1.36
PP	3.51	−2.59	−0.74
	Battery
PTFE	0.08	−0.65	−7.68
cobalt sulphate	0.37	−1.61	−4.38
aluminium	2.68	−11.18	−4.17
nickel sulphate	0.97	−1.67	−1.72
PP	0.39	−0.28	−0.74
steel	1.05	0.27	0.25
iron	0.42	0.35	0.83
copper	0.44	0.64	1.44
manganese sulphate	0.12	1.13	9.35

shows a more detailed view of the significant recycling credit (87% of the scenario’s total credit) identifying recycling of aluminium (−69.49 kg CO₂ eq), steel (−54.65 kg CO₂ eq), and styrene butadiene rubber (−24.87 kg CO₂ eq) as the main contributors to this treatment’s credit.

Scenario 2 (component reuse) results in a gross GWP₁₀₀ credit of −227.69 kg CO₂ eq, 9.6% higher than the credit in Scenario 1. Owing to the component reuse, the EoL treatment accounts for a credit of −78.87 kg CO₂ eq, higher than the reuse contribution in the base scenario. The credit for Scenario 2 is further composed of credits for recycling (−165.76 kg CO₂ eq), as well as considered emissions for incineration (10.94 kg CO₂ eq) and landfill (4.51 kg CO₂ eq).

The highest credit can be found in Scenario 3 (battery repurpose), with a gross GWP₁₀₀ of −263.00 kg CO₂ eq, 26% higher than the EoL credit of the base scenario. Here, the credit from repurposing the battery is −55.22 kg CO₂ eq. Moreover, the EoL recycling contributed a credit of −181.02 kg CO₂ eq, and the EoL reuse added a credit of −43.80 kg CO₂ eq. Emissions for the landfill (4.51 kg CO₂ eq) and incineration (10.96 kg CO₂ eq) were considered.

The EoL option of Scenario 4 resulted only in landfill emissions without any credits.

To distinctly assess the GWP₁₀₀ of the battery and RVB, Figure 6 shows the GWP₁₀₀ emissions of the EoL phase relative to the weight of the battery and RVB. Reusing more components (Scenario 2) resulted in a 99% decrease in emissions per 1 kg of treated battery and a 4% decrease for the RVB compared to Scenario 1. On the other hand, repurposing the battery (Scenario 3) decreased emissions per 1 kg of treated battery almost 5.5 times greater than Scenario 1 and 2.7 times greater than Scenario 2.

In all scenarios but Scenario 4, recycling remains the main treatment for many components. To illustrate the influence of the materials on the recycling benefits, Table 6 shows the recovered weight after recycling, GWP₁₀₀, including burdens and credits of the recycling treatment, as well as the corresponding emissions per recovered material. Since recycling treatments were modelled equally for each material, emissions behaved linearly relative to the treated weight, not affecting the relative GWP₁₀₀ recycling impact when changing recycling amounts. Therefore, only Scenario 1 is displayed in Table 6.

For the RVB, aluminium and stainless steel demonstrated the highest GWP₁₀₀ reductions of −4.64 and −4.37 CO₂ eq per treated kg, whereas polypropylene (PP) showed the lowest GWP₁₀₀ reduction of −0.74 CO₂ eq per treated kg. On the other hand, when recycling the battery, the recovered polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) of the battery case obtained the highest reduction of −7.68 CO₂ eq, followed by cobalt sulphate and aluminium at −4.38 and −4.17 CO₂ eq, respectively. Steel, iron, copper, and manganese sulphate showed positive values, indicating that the treatment emissions were higher than the 1 kg material recovery credit. This is mainly due to the low weight contribution of these elements in the battery cell, compared to the higher emissions involved in the treatment. Nevertheless, the accumulated relative GWP₁₀₀ of the battery cells combining cobalt sulphate, nickel sulphate, steel, copper, and manganese sulphate resulted in a reduction of −0.42 CO₂ eq.

4. Discussion

The LCA results proved the importance of appropriate disposal methods, as treatment through landfill (Scenario 4) resulted in emissions that were 1.47 times higher than the baseline. As mentioned above, Scenario 4, as a hypothetical negative scenario, did not align with current regulations, which only allow 5%wt of EoL vehicles to be landfilled [26]. Stricter controls, sanctions, and the inclusion of more vehicle types within current EoL regulations could avoid higher shares of treatment through landfill. Although the status quo represents a notable improvement over landfilling, current e-moped regulations still allow for considerable decision-making flexibility regarding the preference for recycling over reuse [31]. In 2022, components selected for reuse accounted for only 3% of the weight of treated vehicles [34]. Reusing components should be prioritised over recycling, as this extends product life while allowing for recycling at a later EoL stage [22,53]. This is also supported by findings from [21], who compared different EoL options for treating a coffee machine. As described, recycling is not replaced by other EoL strategies but rather shifted backward in the prolonged product life cycle.

The modelled reuse scenario in this study followed a conservative approach that considered 20% of the e-moped’s weight for reuse and showed a reduction of only 2.8% compared to Scenario 1. Reusing components at EoL achieved the highest GWP₁₀₀ reduction for a coffee machine. Nevertheless, the authors selected higher reuse rates of 30%wt, 87%wt, and 100%wt [21]. Furthermore, as demonstrated in Table 6, material choice was shown to have a significant impact on the potential for emission reduction.

Another factor influencing the discourse and implementation of component reuse is its economic viability, as the selection of components for reuse by disassembly facilities is largely dependent on their market value [32]. Although this study supports the environmental importance of this EoL strategy, a cost–benefit analysis is necessary to ensure its implementation. Closed-loop in-house remanufacturing systems, the extension of the second-life market, and the implementation of a digital record that provides comprehensive information about a product’s entire life cycle, such as the Digital Product Passport, could significantly enhance the economic viability of reused components. The integration of these measures could help EoL directives determine a mandatory minimum weight share to be reused.

Battery recycling treatments retain a high energy demand compared to the relatively low recovery rates [54]. Nevertheless, future increases in battery collection, as well as the specialisation of recycling processes in in-house treatments, could enhance the efficiency of battery recycling [44,54]. In addition, cell composition and battery size influence recovery rates and environmental net impact [55], as well as the recovery value of precious metals [26]. Variations in these parameters should be further studied in the context of LEVs [44].

Findings on the effect of repurposing vehicle batteries in stationary applications differ in the literature; [8] found a reduction of less than 1% compared to recycling, while [39] obtained a reduction of 15%, placing this study in between with a reduction of 7.8%. When modelling battery repurposing scenarios, these variations can occur due to deviating battery efficiency fade, defined cell recovery rate, and the life span of the second-life battery. To further validate the LCA results of this scenario, sensitivity analyses of these parameters can be conducted. These can follow the analyses in [8,39] by modelling a battery cell conversion rate from 10% to 100% in 10% intervals and assuming one-, five-, and ten-year lifespans for the battery’s second life to be repurposed. Further technological challenges, such as aligning battery cell capacity with the requirements of stationary applications, and market barriers, including user acceptance of second-life batteries, should be thoroughly evaluated.

To reuse, repurpose, or recycle components, the capability for disassembly is necessary. Successful disassembly was assumed for Scenarios 1–3 due to a lack of primary data. However, the inability to separate materials remains a central challenge for both component reuse and material recycling [44,56]. Manufacturers should therefore consider the EoL life cycle stage during the product design. According to the results of this study, enabling battery repurposing and component reuse should be prioritised. This can be considered in the design stage, for example, through a modular design in which the battery can be easily removed from the RVB without damaging it, ensuring the feasibility of Scenario 3. To enable different stationary applications from the same battery type, a battery cell design that allows easy battery cell stacking can be beneficial. Furthermore, it is advisable to ensure that all connections are detachable so that materials can be easily separated in the recycling process and that mainly recyclable materials are selected to achieve the highest recycling rates.

Overall, the LCA results indicate that aluminium as a material and the battery as a component are the most influential factors when targeting emissions reduction. A high emissions share of the aluminium components and the battery is also evident in the production of electric kick scooters [57].

The transferability of the results of this study to the EoL of additional LEVs will be the subject of further research. To this end, reference should also be made to relevant existing studies such as [58]. In the case of similar material composition, we expect to obtain similar relative outcomes. In the case of smaller and lighter LEVs, where the battery might have a higher share of the overall weight, the EoL battery repurpose option (Scenario 3) is expected to have an even higher relative impact on the GHG reduction potential. Furthermore, the demanded minimal recovery, recycling, and reuse rates from the WEEE directive are lower compared to the EoL vehicle directive, suggesting an even higher GHG reduction potential for Scenarios 2 and 3 compared to treatment after the WEEE directive.

The e-moped analysed currently falls outside the scope of an applicable EoL regulation. Issues arising from the exclusion of certain vehicle types from the vehicle EoL Directive 2000/53/EC, such as a significant share of unrecorded vehicles that are neither properly collected nor treated under environmentally sound conditions, have already been acknowledged by the European Commission [59]. In its 2023 proposal for a new regulation on EoL vehicles, the EU aims, among other things, to extend the scope of the existing vehicle EoL Directive 2000/53/EC to include a broader range of vehicle categories.

The findings of this study clearly highlight the environmental importance of such an inclusion since landfilling the e-moped results in a GWP₁₀₀ that is 1.47 times higher than the baseline scenario, which assumes compliant treatment under both the vehicle and battery EoL directives.

However, despite its broader scope, the 2023 proposal still omits the specific vehicle type analysed in this study. The current selection of vehicle categories by the EU may not fully reflect the growing market relevance and environmental impact potential of small electric vehicles such as L1e B-class e-mopeds.

An alternative regulatory pathway could involve revising the WEEE Directive 2012/19/EU and Directive 2005/64/EC regarding the type-approval of motor vehicles to explicitly include L1e B vehicles under the WEEE framework. However, such a shift would place e-mopeds in Category 4 (large appliances), which is subject to lower minimum recovery, reuse, and recycling targets compared to those mandated under the vehicle EoL Directive 2000/53/EC [30,46].

5. Conclusions

This study demonstrated that transitioning to CE strategies in the mobility sector can substantially reduce GHG emissions. The LCA of a shared electric moped revealed that, while the baseline EoL treatment (699 kg CO₂ eq) now performs significantly better in terms of the GWP₁₀₀ than improper disposal (1025 kg CO₂ eq), further improvements are achievable through component reuse and battery repurposing. Increasing the reuse of components reduced the GWP₁₀₀ by 2.8%, whereas repurposing the battery led to an even more substantial reduction of 7.8% compared to the baseline. Material-specific insights—particularly the high recycling potential of aluminium and the critical role of the battery—highlight the importance of targeted eco-design and effective disassembly processes. Furthermore, directives play a vital role in the implementation of CE principles. In the case of batteries, directives can enhance the effectiveness of recycling processes while optimising knowledge transfer and battery collection. However, from an environmental perspective, the EU vehicle directive can establish a mandatory weight percentage allocated for reuse rather than leaving it up to disassembly facilities to decide between recycling and reuse, as is currently the case. This would ensure a more structured approach to extending product life cycles and reducing associated environmental impacts.

Future research should extend these results by including sensitivity analyses, economic assessments, and further investigation of dismantling and recycling efficiencies. It is imperative to align regulatory frameworks, technological innovation, and sustainable design to promote circular transition in the electric mobility sector and support global efforts toward achieving net-zero emissions.