Re-use of this article is permitted in accordance with the Terms and Conditions set out at http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/authorresources/onlineopen.html
RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS
Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles
Article first published online: 4 OCT 2012
DOI: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x
© 2012 by Yale University
Additional Information
How to Cite
Hawkins, T. R., Singh, B., Majeau-Bettez, G. and Strømman, A. H. (2013), Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 17: 53–64. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x
Publication History
- Issue published online: 21 FEB 2013
- Article first published online: 4 OCT 2012
Funded by
- Norwegian Research Council. Grant Number: 190940
Vol. 17, Issue 1, 158–160, Article first published online: 16 JAN 2013
Keywords:
- batteries;
- electricity mix;
- global warming;
- industrial ecology;
- life cycle inventory (LCI);
- transportation
Summary
Electric vehicles (EVs) coupled with low-carbon electricity sources offer the potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and exposure to tailpipe emissions from personal transportation. In considering these benefits, it is important to address concerns of problem-shifting. In addition, while many studies have focused on the use phase in comparing transportation options, vehicle production is also significant when comparing conventional and EVs. We develop and provide a transparent life cycle inventory of conventional and electric vehicles and apply our inventory to assess conventional and EVs over a range of impact categories. We find that EVs powered by the present European electricity mix offer a 10% to 24% decrease in global warming potential (GWP) relative to conventional diesel or gasoline vehicles assuming lifetimes of 150,000 km. However, EVs exhibit the potential for significant increases in human toxicity, freshwater eco-toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and metal depletion impacts, largely emanating from the vehicle supply chain. Results are sensitive to assumptions regarding electricity source, use phase energy consumption, vehicle lifetime, and battery replacement schedules. Because production impacts are more significant for EVs than conventional vehicles, assuming a vehicle lifetime of 200,000 km exaggerates the GWP benefits of EVs to 27% to 29% relative to gasoline vehicles or 17% to 20% relative to diesel. An assumption of 100,000 km decreases the benefit of EVs to 9% to 14% with respect to gasoline vehicles and results in impacts indistinguishable from those of a diesel vehicle. Improving the environmental profile of EVs requires engagement around reducing vehicle production supply chain impacts and promoting clean electricity sources in decision making regarding electricity infrastructure.
1530-9290/asset/olbannerleft.gif?v=1&s=6a3a02534566058379543c3b2bea5b2e04f485ef)
1530-9290/asset/olbannerright.gif?v=1&s=68ef93146a08b203799ccd28b8c5e1c52419d0c1)
1530-9290/asset/cover.gif?v=1&s=fe53f4c362f619ba455ed94bedec53f6886dd4f3)