Life Cycle CO2 Footprint
of a LCVTP vehicle
LCVTP Final Dissemination Event
21 February 2012
Jane Patterson
Technology, Innovation & Strategy
Ricardo UK
RD.12/22401.2
Introduction

LCVTP has developed a range of technologies
that will reduce the tailpipe CO2 emissions of
passenger cars

But tailpipe emissions alone do not necessarily tell
the whole story …
> How do these technologies compare on a
life cycle basis?

Ricardo applied Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) techniques to understand the potential
life cycle CO2 footprint of a future vehicle using LCVTP technologies and components
> Analysis based on SUV-segment vehicle
> Key components investigated in separate cradle-to-gate carbon studies (battery
pack, motor generator and power electronics)
> Whole vehicle considered in top-down review
> Results compared with a benchmark vehicle representing today’s technology
Source: Ricardo
RD.12/22401.2 2
Life Cycle CO2 Footprint of LCVTP vehicle
energy scenario UK 2011
Benchmark Vehicle
LCVTP
Electric Vehicle
LCVTP
RE-EV
46.8 tCO2e
38.7 tCO2e
39.7 tCO2e
Assume lifetime mileage 200,000 km. Assume fuels B5 and E5. Assume electricity carbon intensity 594 gCO2e/kWh.
Assume battery pack is not replaced during the vehicle lifetime. Units are tonnes of CO 2 equivalent, based on global
warming potential of GHG emissions over 100 year time horizon
Sources: Benchmark vehicle footprint adapted from JLR’s LCA study of the Freelander, independently certified by the VCA to ISO 14040, ISO 14044 and ISO14062.
Footprint predictions for LCVTP EV and RE-EV based on Ricardo analysis.
RD.12/22401.2 3
Vehicle Specifications

Benchmark
Vehicle

Fuel

LCVTP
Electric Vehicle
(EV)


LCVTP
Range-Extended
Electric Vehicle
(RE-EV)

Fuel

SUV segment vehicle
2.2L diesel engine with stop-start,
6-speed manual transmission,
FWD
SUV segment vehicle
35 kWh Li-ion battery pack,
108 kW (continuous) motor,
3-speed transmission, FWD
SUV segment vehicle
13.3 kWh Li-ion battery pack,
108 kW (continuous) motor,
3-speed transmission, FWD
0.9L gasoline APU engine with
motor generator,
Sources: Ricardo
RD.12/22401.2 4
Vehicle Performance Characteristics
Benchmark Vehicle
LCVTP
Electric Vehicle
LCVTP
RE-EV
1794 kg
1520 kg
1440 kg
-
35 kWh
13.3 kWh
Diesel
Electricity
Electricity and Gasoline
5.9 L/100km
-
2.2 L/100km
-
21.0 kWh/100km
13.8 kWh/100km
0 km
130 km
50 km
Tailpipe CO2
158 gCO2/km
0 gCO2/km
51 gCO2/km
Well-to-Wheels CO2
184 gCO2/km
125 gCO2/km
140 gCO2/km
Vehicle Mass
Battery Capacity
Fuel
Fuel Consumption
(combined)
Electricity Consumption
(combined)
EV Range
Selection of battery capacity based on compromise between EV range, cost and mass. Assume fuels contain 5% vol
biofuel (i.e. B5 and E5). Assume WTT factor for diesel is 0.445 kgCO2e/L, and WTT factor for gasoline is 0.338
kgCO2e/L (CONCAWE). Assume carbon intensity of electricity is 594 gCO2e/kWh (Defra). Assume battery charging
efficiency is 90%. Use 70% battery capacity for calculating EV range
Sources: Benchmark vehicle data provided by JLR. Predicted LCVTP vehicle characteristics from vehicle simulation conducted by Ricardo
RD.12/22401.2 5
Note about predicted vehicle characteristics
ILLUSTRATIVE

20% mass reduction in vehicle glider, without increase in embedded CO2e (WS7)

Transmission: 1% reduction due to
gearbox improvements
Tyres: 10% reduction in rolling (WS11)
Battery Pack

Parastic Losses
~10% improvement in fuel
consumption (WS5)
APU Engine &
Generator

Electric Motor &
Power
Electronics
2-3% efficiency
improvement in electric
motor and power electronic
components (WS2, WS3)
Aerodynamics

Improved energy density,
reducing battery mass by
~100kg (35 kWh) (WS1)
Vehicle
Lightweighting

6% drag reduction (WS12)
Production
Vehicle

GTV Research
Vehicle
NEDC Energy Consumption
for RE-EV

Further real-world reductions possible through improvements in vehicle dynamics (WS8) and
thermal management (WS9)
Sources: WMG, JLR, Ricardo
RD.12/22401.2 6
The life cycle of a passenger car
Life cycle
WTW CO2
Fuel Production
Assessment of environmental
impact of producing the energy
vector(s) from primary energy
source to distribution
Vehicle Production
Assessment of environmental
impact of producing the vehicle
from raw materials to complete
product
Use
- Tailpipe CO2 from driving
- Impact from maintenance and
servicing
Life cycle
embedded CO2
Disposal
Assessment of environmental
impact of “end of life” scenario,
including re-using components,
recycling materials and landfill
Source: Ricardo
RD.12/22401.2 7
Top-down method for estimating life cycle CO2
Vehicle
Production
Fuel
Production
Vehicle
Simulation
Key Systems
Materials
Lifetime
Fuel / Energy
Consumption
+
x
Production
Processes /
Energy
Well-to-Tank
CO2 factor
Source: Ricardo
In-Use
Disposal
Total
Tailpipe
CO2
x
Lifetime
mileage
Assumed lifetime
mileage to be
200,000 km
Considered
negligible in this
study

Note: Zero tailpipe
emissions for BEV
e.g. CO2 from generating electricity
(UK grid carbon intensity)
RD.12/22401.2 8
Life Cycle CO2 Footprint of LCVTP vehicle
energy scenario UK 2011
70
CO2e emissions [tonnes]
60
Vehicle Use
(TTW)
50
17%
40
15%
4%
Fuel
Production
(WTT)
41%
Electricity
Production
Vehicle
Production
26%
30
67%
65%
20
10
12%
21%
35%
29%
Benchmark Vehicle
LCVTP EV
LCVTP RE-EV
0
Assume lifetime mileage 200,000 km. Fuels B5 and E5. Electricity carbon intensity assumed to be 594 gCO2e/kWh.
Assume battery pack is not replaced during the vehicle lifetime.
Source: JLR, Ricardo
RD.12/22401.2 9
Life Cycle CO2 Footprint of LCVTP vehicle
energy scenario France 2011
70
CO2e emissions [tonnes]
60
Vehicle Use
(TTW)
50
57%
40
30
Fuel
Production
(WTT)
67%
38%
20
32%
10
41%
12%
5%
15%
21%
68%
42%
Benchmark Vehicle
LCVTP EV
LCVTP RE-EV
Electricity
Production
Vehicle
Production
0
Assume lifetime mileage 200,000 km. Fuels B5 and E5. Electricity carbon intensity assumed to be 149 gCO2e/kWh.
Assume battery pack is not replaced during the vehicle lifetime.
Source: JLR, Ricardo
RD.12/22401.2 10
Life Cycle CO2 Footprint of LCVTP vehicle
energy scenario China 2011
70
+ 32%
CO2e emissions [tonnes]
60
+ 17%
50
19%
Vehicle Use
(TTW)
3%
40
30
78%
67%
57%
Electricity
Production
20
10
Fuel
Production
(WTT)
12%
21%
22%
21%
Benchmark Vehicle
LCVTP EV
LCVTP RE-EV
Vehicle
Production
0
Assume lifetime mileage 200,000 km. Fuels B5 and E5. Electricity carbon intensity assumed to be 1145 gCO2e/kWh.
Assume battery pack is not replaced during the vehicle lifetime.
Source: JLR, Ricardo
RD.12/22401.2 11
Embedded CO2e emissions
Benchmark Vehicle
LCVTP
Electric Vehicle
LCVTP
RE-EV
9.9 tCO2e
13.7 tCO2e
11.6 tCO2e
1%
1%
1%
2%
3%
6%
7%
6%
15%
15%
33%
56%
78%
3%
5%
66%
2%
Vehicle Glider
Engine & Exhaust
Transmission
Fuel System
Battery
Motor
Power Electronics
Other components
Source: Ricardo
RD.12/22401.2 12
Carbon payback
energy scenario UK 2011
Cumulative CO2e [tonnes]
50
45
40
Carbon payback for
EV ~65,000 km
35
30
~8 tCO2e saved
after 200,000 km
Carbon payback for
RE-EV ~40,000 km
25
20
Trade-off between
EV and RE-EV at
~130,000 km
15
10
5
0
-50,000
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
Distance Travelled [km]
Benchmark Vehicle
LCVTP EV
LCVTP RE-EV
Assume lifetime mileage 200,000 km. Fuels B5 and E5. Electricity carbon intensity assumed to be 594 gCO2e/kWh.
Assume battery pack is not replaced during the vehicle lifetime.
Source: JLR, Ricardo
RD.12/22401.2 13
Carbon payback – changing the energy mix
energy scenario France 2011
Cumulative CO2e [tonnes]
50
45
40
35
Carbon payback for
EV ~25,000 km
30
25
Carbon payback for
RE-EV ~16,000 km
20
15
Trade-off between
EV and RE-EV at
~44,000 km
10
5
0
-50,000
0
50,000
100,000
19-27 tCO2e saved
after 200,000 km
150,000
200,000
Distance Travelled [km]
Benchmark Vehicle
LCVTP EV
LCVTP RE-EV
Assume lifetime mileage 200,000 km. Fuels B5 and E5. Electricity carbon intensity assumed to be 149 gCO2e/kWh.
Assume battery pack is not replaced during the vehicle lifetime.
Source: JLR, Ricardo
RD.12/22401.2 14
Caveat: LCVTP is a research project!

Many of the technologies investigated by LCVTP are at the test bench or early
technology validation stage (TRL 2-5)

It will take time and effort to progress these technologies into commercial products
> 5-10 years?

In this time frame, the conventional technology of the benchmark vehicle will also
improve, and it is likely that the biofuel content in diesel will increase 1, 2

Also, some of the LCVTP technologies could also be applied to the benchmark vehicle,
such as lightweighting and improvements in aerodynamics

How would the CO2 footprint comparison look in 2020?
1. The European CO2 Regulation (Regulation No 443/2009) mandates targets for fleet average tailpipe CO 2, which is one
of the main drivers for reducing passenger car tailpipe CO2 in Europe
2. The European Renewable Energy Directive sets a target of 10% renewable energy in transport by 2020
RD.12/22401.2 15
Life Cycle CO2 Footprint of LCVTP vehicle
EXAMPLE
energy scenario UK 2020
70
CO2e emissions [tonnes]
60
Reduction
from UK 2011
scenario
Assume 20%
30% improvement in
vehicle fuel consumption
De-carbonisation of electricity
reduces vehicle CO2 footprint
50
40
30
31%
63%
65%
53%
20
4%
Vehicle Use
(TTW)
Fuel
Production
(WTT)
Electricity
Production
30%
10
9%
28%
26%
47%
35%
Benchmark Vehicle
LCVTP EV
LCVTP RE-EV
Vehicle
Production
0
Assume lifetime mileage 200,000 km. Fuels B10 and E10. Electricity carbon intensity assumed to be 368 gCO 2e/kWh.
Assume battery pack is not replaced during the vehicle lifetime. Apply same vehicle lightweighting technology to
benchmark vehicle, and apply additional powertrain efficiency improvements
Source: JLR, Ricardo
RD.12/22401.2 16
Conclusions

The LCVTP low carbon technologies will help to
reduce the life cycle CO2 emissions of passenger
cars

But this is highly dependent on the carbon intensity
of the electricity grid

And these vehicles will have higher embedded
CO2e emissions from vehicle production

So engineers need to adopt a life cycle philosophy
to ensure future vehicle truly are low carbon

LCVTP is supporting this shift in thinking by:
Design
Disposal
Life Cycle
Philosophy
Production
Use
> Commissioning an easy-to-use LCA tool
suitable for non-expert users based on IDC’s
LCA Calculator (www.lcacalculator.com), and
> Developing the “Clean’n’Lean” process for
removing carbon and cost
RD.12/22401.2 17
Other LCA Activities within LCVTP WS7
LCA Literature
Review (SPMJ)
Development of
non-expert tool
(WMG, SPMJ, JLR, IDC)
LCA study of
car seat (WMG)
(SPMJ)
LCVTP WS7
LCA Activities
Cradle-to-Gate
Carbon Studies of
key components
(Ricardo)
Review of existing
LCA and CO2
Footprinting Tools
Training and
Knowledge Cascade
(SPMJ)
LCA Workshops
Clean’n’Lean
Case Study (Ricardo)
RD.12/22401.2 18
Rapid Automotive Life Cycle Calculator –
An on-line CO2 footprint tool for non-experts
For further information see
www.lcacalculator.com/features/automotive
RD.12/22401.2 19
Thank-you for your attention
Ricardo UK Ltd – Shoreham Techical Centre,
Shoreham-by-Sea, West Sussex, BN43 5FG, UK
Dr Nicholas Powell BSc MBA PhD CEng FIMechE
Chief Engineer
Technology, Innovation & Strategy
Mobile:
Telephone:
Reception:
Ricardo UK Ltd – Shoreham Techical Centre,
Shoreham-by-Sea, West Sussex, BN43 5FG, UK
+44 (0)7843 344691
+44 (0)1273 794525
+44 (0)1273 455611
nick.powell@ricardo.com
Jane Patterson MEng AMIMechE
www.ricardo.com
Senior Project Engineer
Technology, Innovation & Strategy
Direct Dial:
Reception:
Facsimile:
+44 (0)1273 794007
+44 (0)1273 455611
+44 (0)1273 794563
jane.patterson@ricardo.com
www.ricardo.com
Ricardo UK Ltd – Shoreham Techical Centre,
Shoreham-by-Sea, West Sussex, BN43 5FG, UK
Adam Gurr BEng AMIMechE
Systems Engineer
Technology, Innovation & Strategy
Direct Dial:
Reception:
Mobile:
+44 (0)1273 794132
+44 (0)1273 455611
+44 (0)7912 281518
adam.gurr@ricardo.com
www.ricardo.com
RD.12/22401.2 20
Appendix
Support material
RD.12/22401.2
Life Cycle CO2 Footprint Study Assumptions

Vehicle lifetime assumed to be 200,000 km over 10 years

Fuel and electricity consumption based on New European Drive Cycle (NEDC)

On-board battery charger efficiency for plug-in vehicles assumed to be 90%

Battery useable capacity assumed to be 70% (used for calculating EV range)

Assume no major parts are replaced during the vehicle lifetime

Assume battery pack is not replaced during the vehicle lifetime

Assumed vehicles are produced in Europe

Assume the vehicle’s fuel and/or electricity consumption does not change with vehicle age

Assumptions on fuels and electricity are provided in the next slides
RD.12/22401.2 22
Assumptions regarding Well-to-Tank CO2

Well-to-Tank CO2 factors for liquid fuels have been derived from CONCAWE analysis

The study considered two fuel scenarios:
>
>
2011, based on reference fuel specifications

Assume gasoline contains 5%vol, 3%energy ethanol

Ethanol is assumed to be from a range of feedstocks (70% sugar cane, 20%
sugar beet, 8% wheat, 2% corn)

WTT factor 0.337 kgCO2e/Lfuel

Assume diesel contains 5%vol, 6%energy FAME

FAME is assumed to be from a range of feedstocks (40% soy, 25% oilseed rape,
15% tallow, 10% palm, 10% other)

WTT factor 0.445 kgCO2e/Lfuel
2020, based on Renewable Energy Directive targets

Assume gasoline contains 10%vol, 7%energy ethanol

WTT factor 0.272 kgCO2e/Lfuel

Assume diesel contains 10%vol, 9%energy biodiesel

Biodiesel assumed to 63% FAME, 36% HVO and 2% Fischer-Tropsch diesel
(from Ricardo Technology Roadmap)

WTT factor 0.364 kgCO2e/Lfuel
Source: CONCAWE, 2007. Well-to-Wheel Analysis of Future Automotive Fuels and Powertrains in the European Context - WELL-to-TANK Report, Version 2c, March 2007;
Ricardo analysis
RD.12/22401.2 23
Assumptions regarding electricity

Four energy scenarios were considered in the study:
>
UK 2011

UK electricity carbon intensity assumed to 594 gCO2e/kWh (based on data
from Defra)

Both gasoline and diesel assumed to contain 5%vol biofuel
>
France 2011

French electricity carbon intensity assumed to 149 gCO2e/kWh (based on data from PE
International)

Both gasoline and diesel assumed to contain 5%vol biofuel
>
China 2011

Chinese electricity carbon intensity assumed to 1145 gCO2e/kWh (based on data from
PE International)

Both gasoline and diesel assumed to contain 5%vol biofuel
>
UK 2020

UK electricity carbon intensity assumed to 368 gCO2e/kWh (based on CCC scenario for
2020, adjusted to include primary energy production and transmission losses)

Both gasoline and diesel assumed to contain 10%vol biofuel
Sources: Defra (2011). 2011 Guidelines to Defra / DECC’s GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting. Produced by AEA for the Department of Energy and Climate Change
(DECC) and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). Published 7 July 2011;
Ricardo analysis; Committee on Climate Change (CCC); PE International
RD.12/22401.2 24