Carbon Dioxide emissions of Electric Vehicles and
Conventional Vehicles
Parviz Azizov
AZ24AU
Supervisor:
Judit T. Kiss
University of Debrecen Faculty of Engineering Debrecen, 2022
Contents
Contents ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1.
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 2
2.
Literature Review ............................................................................................................... 2
2.1. Environmental Risk Trade-off for New Generation Vehicle Production: Malaysia
Case. ........................................................................................................................................ 2
2.2. Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric
Vehicles ................................................................................................................................... 4
2.3. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of Electric Vehicles in China: Combining the
vehicle cycle and fuel cycle .................................................................................................... 5
2.4. Sustainability analysis of the electric vehicle use in Europe for CO2 emissions
Reduction ................................................................................................................................ 5
2.5. In the distribution of individual daily driving distances ............................................. 6
2.6. The environmental performance of current and future passenger vehicles: Life
cycle assessment based on a novel scenario analysis framework ...................................... 7
2.7. Temporal environmental and economic performance of electric vehicle and
conventional vehicle: A comparative study on their US operations.................................. 7
2.8. Comparison of well-to-wheels energy use and emissions of a hydrogen fuel cell
electric vehicle relative to a conventional gasoline-powered internal combustion engine
vehicle ...................................................................................................................................... 8
2.9. Environmental assessment of RAMseS multipurpose electric vehicle compared to a
conventional combustion engine vehicle .............................................................................. 9
2.10. Environmental and economic benefits of electric, hybrid and conventional vehicle
treatment: A case study of Lithuania. .................................................................................. 9
2.11. Comparative lifecycle assessment of hydrogen fuel cell, electric, CNG, and
gasoline-powered vehicles under real driving conditions................................................. 10
References................................................................................................................................. 11
1
1. Introduction
It has been investigated that Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) as well as Hybrid Electric Vehicles
(HEV), which are considered new-generation vehicles, utilize energy sources more efficiently
than conventional vehicles, so the emission of carbon dioxide is less in new-generation vehicles.
Nevertheless, new questions arise about how “clean” New Generation Vehicles are compared
to conventional vehicles in existing systems, mainly in developing as well as developed
countries, since common techniques only concentrate on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) generation.
This literature review is aimed to examine different articles based on this topic and draw a
conclusion about how environmentally friendly are EVs based on various categories in various
places.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Environmental Risk Trade-off for New Generation Vehicle Production:
Malaysia Case.
Examined literature is aimed to investigate environmental concerns of the production of
compact vehicles centered on 5 impact categories which are Human Health measured in
“Disability Adjusted Life-Year” (DALY), Eutrophication, GHG generation, Acidification,
Carcinogenic Effect via utilizing Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) Analysis evaluated from electricity
mix between 2017 and 2030 covering only until vehicle production phase. Evaluated
assessments are made to compare existing vehicle technologies with the high possibility of mass
usage in Malaysia– Conventional Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle (CV), HEV, and EV
vehicles with two types of batteries which are Lithium Nickel-Magnesium-Cobalt (HEV-NMC)
and Nickel Magnesium Hydride (HEV-NiMH). According to this study, EV contains a
marginally higher potential for global warming (5.791 kg of CO2 emission), afterwards, HEVNiMH (4,814kg), HEV-NMC (4,596kg) and CV (4,166kg) expressed per vehicle. Interestingly,
cradle-to-gate of CV is better in Carcinogenic and GHG emission impact in comparison with all
the examined categories. However, in general, assessment for human health, which is evaluated
in DALY it is not a convenient solution. On the contrary, HEV contain a significantly high effect
on mentioned categories
2
In this article expansion of LIME2 “Life-cycle Impact Assessment Method Endpoint Modeling”
methodology is applied to the evaluation of compact vehicle production in Malaysia. By
application of the IDEA (Inventory Database for Environmental Analysis) inventory database
and analyzing LIME2 method, vehicle models are inventoried. It is important to note that impact
data for Asian countries are more precisely represented in the LIME2 method; therefore,
applying this method to the Malaysia case is more suitable.
The result of this study is given as follows:
First of all, the production of EVs contains a marginally high potential to cause global warming,
followed by HEV and CV. Even without the conventional parts, EV consumes higher energy
for the production of the 200 kg battery and parts of the battery. The 5,791 kg embodied CO2
emissions, which is 39% higher in comparison with the current CV. It is important to note that
the values evaluated in this article are considerably compared to other existing articles because
of lessening the total vehicle weight. Total impact, DALY is significantly low compared to other
mentioned vehicles.
Next, HEV-NiMH production emits 4,814 kg CO2, while HEV-NMC production releases 4,596
kg CO2 throughout the production of the battery. HEV-NiMH also contains the greatest
eutrophication potential at 0.78 kg phosphate and acidification potential at 23.06 kg SO2
equivalent for the production of each battery. Using these two various battery technologies have
remarkable variation, especially in the Carcinogen, Eutrophication, and Acidification impact
categories. Shifting from the NiMH batteries to lithium-ion batteries can result in less emissions
to the environment.
Interestingly, cradle-to-gate of CV is cleaner in terms of GHG emission and Carcinogenic
impact compared to all the studied subjects. CV production process embodies 4,166 kg of GHG
and 0.30 kg of benzene equivalent into the environment in terms of 1 production unit, containing
the least impact among all the vehicles being studied. On the other hand, when it comes to
vehicle usage emission, the total emissions of CV will turn out to be the worst because it
consumes much more fuel and at the same time generates more exhaust by-products in
comparison with the other vehicle type.
3
Last of all, the different impact categories can be briefed in terms of DALY. Even though GHG
emissions of EVs are evaluated as greatest during the production phase, the total index in human
health is the least in comparison with the other vehicle types studied. According to the evaluation
in this article DALY for 2017 CV production is at 0.0019, HEV-NMC at 0.0022, EV at 0.0014
and HEV-NiMH at 0.0036. These comparisons created a dilemma between getting higher
Eutrophication and Acidification from conventional vehicles versus getting higher GHG
generation of its substitution EV production. This represents information that EV production
still is the most suitable solution in terms of global sustainability. To be greener, Car
manufacturers ought to invest more in the production and service of EVs, at the same time,
governments should suggest more active policies towards enhancing the sales and taxes of
Electric Vehicles. [1]
2.2. Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional
and Electric Vehicles
It is assumed that EVs, combined with low-carbon electricity sources, are capable of lowering
GHG emissions and exposure to tailpipe emissions from personal transportation. Considering
all the upsides of shifting to EVs it is crucial to deal with concerns of this process. This article
mainly focuses on comparing the production of vehicles, namely, conventional and electric
vehicles. In order to assess its transparent life cycle inventory, both types of vehicles are
compared over a range of various impact categories. According to this article, it was evaluated
that EVs that utilize electric sources from the European electricity mix tend to reduce Global
Warming Potential (GWP) from 10% to 24% in comparison with conventional gasoline and
diesel vehicles where the lifetime of the vehicle is assessed 150000 km. On the other hand,
according to the results of life cycle inventory assessment EVs tend to exhibit the potential for
a notable increase in freshwater eco – toxicity, human toxicity, freshwater eutrophication, and
metal depletion impacts, which are in most cases originating from the vehicle supply chain. It is
crucial to note that results are sensitive to vehicle lifetime, electricity source, battery replacement
schedule, and use phase energy consumption. As GHG emissions of EVs are considerably higher
than conventional vehicles, if the lifetime of the vehicle is assumed 200000 km GWP benefits
significantly rise to 27% to 29% relative to gasoline vehicles or 17% to 20% relative to diesel.
However, if the lifetime of the vehicle is assumed at 100000 km GWP benefits decrease
4
significantly for EVs 9% to 14% with respect to gasoline and diesel vehicles. As a result,
increasing the environmental benefits of EVs requires commitment to reducing vehicle
production supply chain effects as well as encouraging clean electricity sources for electricity
infrastructure. [2]
2.3. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of Electric Vehicles in China:
Combining the vehicle cycle and fuel cycle
This study is aimed to analyze the life cycle of each phase of EV production in China, including
recycling processes, real manufacturing technologies and the driving cycle. Furthermore, in this
study, GHG emissions of Grave – to – Cradle (GTC), Well – to – Wheel (WTW), Cradle – to
– Gate (CTG) from various types of vehicles at various times are analyzed to understand the
main drivers and reduction prospects for A0 - A class compact sedan model presently in China.
The result of the article reveals life cycle GHG emissions of EV were approximately 41.0 t CO2
in 2015 which is 18% lower compared with Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles (ICEV). It
was estimated to decrease emissions to 34.1 t CO2 in 2020 due to the reduction of GHG
emissions from electricity production. Because of the large CO2 emissions of its production
phase WTW phase is the largest contributor of both types of vehicles, however it is considerably
different in different phases. As technologies and efficiencies improve GHG emissions in WTW
phase for EV declines rapidly. However, it cannot be achieved at the same speed in CTG, which
hinders getting the full environmental advantages of EV. According to this study, apart from
fuel economy development, there are 2 other ways possible to reduce GHG emissions in the full
life cycle of EV. Firstly, recycling of EV can decrease GHG emissions of the CTG phase nearly
50%. Secondly, energy source improvement will significantly improve WTW phase as a clean
power grid reduces CO2 emissions from electricity generation. [3]
2.4. Sustainability analysis of the electric vehicle use in Europe for CO2
emissions Reduction
This study mainly deals with the analysis of the efficiency of use phase and, depending on the
electric power plant fleet, how EV emissions vary compared to internal combustion engine
vehicles. In order to carry out analysis GWP for electricity generation where most electric cars
are sold in the EU is evaluated. Likewise, via applying the Monte Carlo method, EV’s use-phase
5
energy efficiency is evaluated under a wide range of driving conditions. Obtained outcomes
from energy production and energy use phases are compared to the GWP calculated for ICEVs
for six different driving cycles, to derive the threshold values for which electric vehicles offer a
decrease in GWP. Next, These threshold figures are accorded with the current electrical power
plant fleet and the electric vehicle promotion incentives of the EU countries in the study,
showing that some countries (Norway and France) are more suitable for EVs adoption, however
countries like Spain or Portugal should boost electric vehicle promotion policies. Moreover,
despite other European countries, like Germany or the UK that put effort into decarbonizing
their power plant fleet, they cannot offer an immediate decrease in GHG emissions for the
shifting to electric vehicles from ICEVs. [4]
2.5. In the distribution of individual daily driving distances
Plug-in electric vehicles (PEV) provide an opportunity to lower greenhouse gas emissions.
Nevertheless, the reduction of emissions and the utility of PEVs strongly depend on daily vehicle
kilometers travelled (VKT). Moreover, the daily VKT by individual passenger cars fluctuate
greatly on various days. In order to analyze individual daily VKTs fit distribution functions are
utilized. This article analyses three two-parameter distribution functions for the variation in
daily VKT with four sets of travel data covering a total of 190,000 driving days and 9.5 million
VKT. Explicitly, the article delves into the overall performance of the distributions on the data
utilizing 4 goodness of fit measures, at the same time, the importance of choosing one
distribution over the others for 2 common PEV applications: the utility factor for plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles as well as, required days adaptation for battery electric vehicles. It is observed
that the Weibull distribution fits most vehicles well but not all and, at the same time, generates
good estimates for PEV related characteristics. Moreover, distribution choice does impact PEV
usage factors. According to this article, the Weibull distribution produces reliable assessments
for electric vehicle applications. On the other hand, the log-normal distribution yields more
conservative assessments for PEV usage factors. This article aids in choosing better distribution
for a specific research question by applying driving data and offers a methodological
advancement in the application of distribution functions to longitudinal driving data. [5]
6
2.6. The environmental performance of current and future passenger
vehicles: Life cycle assessment based on a novel scenario analysis
framework
This article aims to assess the environmental performance of a comprehensive collection of the
present as well as future mid-size passenger vehicles. This paper offers a comparative LCA
created on novel integrated vehicle simulation framework. Advantage of this framework is its
allowance for reliability in vehicle parameter settings as well as its consideration for future
technologies. In this article, almost all types of vehicles are analyzed including diesel and natural
gas, conventional and hybrid gasoline, fuel cell and battery electric vehicles in which hydrogen
production chains and electricity from fossil, renewable and nuclear energy sources are taken
into account. The result of this article highlights that in order to alleviate climate change process,
electric passenger vehicles powered by non-fossil energy resources should be utilized. On the
other hand, in some environmental factors like particulate matter formation, acidification and
toxicity, EVs and in several cases fuel cell vehicles are showing worse results than conventional
vehicles because of emissions along fuel and vehicle production chains. Hence, in order to
deviate from the drawbacks of environmental issues and for a greener environment, vehicle and
electricity supply chain, at the same time, transport and energy policies must be taken into
account applying life cycle management. [6]
2.7. Temporal environmental and economic performance of electric vehicle
and conventional vehicle: A comparative study on their US operations
This article deals with the temporal economic as well as environmental benefits of switching
from internal combustion engine vehicles to EVs in United States of America. Unlike ICEVs,
EVs utilize lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) as energy storage, degrading after utilization over
certain cycles and leading to inefficiencies in discharging and charging, increasing operation
cost and energy consumption and reduction in driving range. It is necessary to highlight that
most of the current studies focused on the economic and environmental benefits of EVs do not
consider worsened performance over time, leading to inaccurate results in long term assessment.
To address problem, this paper applies a mathematical model to assess as well as benchmark the
environmental and economic benefits of buying EVs over ICEVs in 10 year operation time by
7
incorporating spatiotemporal operation models and battery degradation. According to the results
of this study, the energy consumption of EVs rises 86.3 Wh per mile after 10 years of usage,
which in fact, has the potential to decrease GHG emissions as well as the economic saving
potential of substituting ICEV with EVs by 18.9% and 9.28%. Moreover, on this state level,
when battery replacement is taken into account, economic (Hawaii) and environmental
(Wyoming and Indiana) benefit from switching to EVs are mostly counteracted in the operation
phase. In conclusion, obtained outcomes lead to basic understanding of the economic and
environmental performance of EVs in comparison with ICEVs in 10 years usage time, which is
able to assist customers and policymakers in making a better choice of vehicles, as well as based
on their explicit operation conditions battery replacement. [7]
2.8. Comparison of well-to-wheels energy use and emissions of a hydrogen
fuel cell electric vehicle relative to a conventional gasoline-powered internal
combustion engine vehicle
The operation of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles (HFCEVs) produces zero tailpipe pollutant
emissions and is considered more efficient than gasoline ICEVs. Nevertheless, refueling,
transportation and production of hydrogen are more emission and energy intensive in
comparison with gasoline. This article evaluates WTW emission and energy use analysis of
conventional ICEV (Mazda 3) and HFCEV (Toyota Mirai). In order to conduct an evaluation,
2 sets of particular fuel consumption data are utilized for every vehicle. Firstly, fuel consumption
obtained by window-sticker fuel economy of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
secondly, fuel usage built on physical vehicle testing with chassis dynamometer on EPA’s five
standard driving cycles. The result of this article indicates that, even if hydrogen is obtained
through a fossil-based production pathway, HFCEV utilizes between 5 and 33% less WTW
fossil energy and contains from 15% to 45% lower WTW GHG emissions in comparison with
ICEV powered by gasoline. In the end, it must be highlighted that WTW results are sensitive to
the electricity source which is utilized hydrogen liquefaction. [8]
8
2.9. Environmental assessment of RAMseS multipurpose electric vehicle
compared to a conventional combustion engine vehicle
The RAMseS project is aimed to develop solar powered agricultural vehicle to replace the
conventional vehicles, and it is organized by the European Commission under the 6th framework
Program. This article is aimed to report a difference in life-cycle emission between ICEV and
the RAMseS electric vehicle. Evaluations are performed by designing a particular model and
utilizing the SimaPro software. The results of the articles indicate that the RAMseS system is
noticeably more environmentally friendly than ICEVs. In particular, it can lessen the emission
of about 23 tons of CO2 per year. Considering all other pollutants, this article showed that the
RAMseS system is 2.6 times more efficient than the ICEV. It is important to note that, a major
contributor to emissions of the RAMseS system comes from the batteries estimated at a 73% of
all pollutions. Thus, it is possible to derive further enhancement via more advanced and
environmentally friendly battery systems, which are not based on lead. [9]
2.10. Environmental and economic benefits of electric, hybrid and
conventional vehicle treatment: A case study of Lithuania.
Recycling, recovery, reuse, and of end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) are promoted owing to numerous
environmental and economic benefits. Automotive remanufacturing provides circular marketing
system for the reutilization of recovered parts that has the potential to bring economic
advantages for consumers and dismantling companies. The aim of this study is to show the
environmental and economic advantages of the end-of-life treatment of hybrid, electric, as well
as conventional vehicles. This article reveals economic evaluation of the reutilization of ELV
parts based on a material flow analysis (MFA) and, a practical analysis of the costs of these parts
in the Lithuanian market. The environmental evaluation of the reuse of ELV parts was conducted
utilizing MFA, the CO2 equivalents to produce different materials, and the life cycle assessment
methodology. Result of this article indicates that 38% of all hybrid and electric ELV parts, and
27% and 28% of diesel- and petrol-powered ELV parts, respectively, can be sold or in other
words reused. The economic benefit of all 4 types of ELVs could reduce costs up to 12,739 Euro
and 51,281 Euro for the dismantlers and passenger car consumers, respectively. The biggest
9
CO2 reduction is derived from reutilizing the parts of electric ELVs, whereas the lowest
contributor to cost reduction is obtained from petrol ELVs. [10]
2.11. Comparative lifecycle assessment of hydrogen fuel cell, electric, CNG,
and gasoline-powered vehicles under real driving conditions
This article is aimed to examine role of personal vehicles for 4 different types of vehicles which
are hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCV), CNG fueled, gasoline fueled and electric vehicles.
Software used to evaluate performance of each type of vehicles is called Simcenter Amesim
Software which is aimed to simulate performance of these vehicles for New York City
conditions. According to the results of simulation, under certain driving cycle hydrogen fuel cell
vehicles and EVs consume 26.47g of hydrogen and 1.51% of the battery pack capacity
respectively, whilst gasoline fueled and CNG vehicle consume 174.07g and 165.44g of gasoline
and CNG in each driving cycle respectively. Next, in order to investigate LCA, the GREET
software is utilized to examine overall performance of vehicles from cradle to grave. In this
LCA analysis CO, Sox, CO2, GHG, NOx pollutions are evaluated for each type vehicles where
fuel cell vehicles indicate best overall results. In conclusion, comparison of CO2 emission for
FCV with other types are 35.5%, 75.87% and 73.42% lower for EV, gasoline fueled and CNG
fueled vehicles, respectively. [11]
1.1.Methods used to compare carbon emissions
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11367-015-0954-z
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/14/5873 CHAPTER 4
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10661-010-1678-y
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142151930196X?casa_token=RGh
A3EMIfG8AAAAA:FXq8rdj589TYQhMYg2cGOeBMdlP4ikgi2Fh6XXPiuImavARm4KdNfMLOmMtiV71Zmcf4bQtz4g
Son paragraph: IN THIS REVIEW LCA AND BLABLA BLA METHODS ARE
MAJORLY EXAMINED (WHAT IS LCA & WHAT OUR EXAMINED
RESEARCHES CHECKED (KIRMIZIYLA YAZANLAR))
10
http://www.gtc.com/electromobility/pdf/1.6%20Vehicle%20Technology/Life%20Cycl
e%20Analysis%20of%20the%20Climate%20Impact%20of%20Electric%20Vehicles%
20-%20TE%20-%20draft%20report%20v04.pdf
https://sci-hub.se/10.1021/es034574q
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x
1.2.Environmental and Health Impacts of EVs and others SİYAHLA YAZANLAR
References
[1] A. Tokai and Muhammad Azmi, , “Environmental Risk Trade-off for New Generation
Vehicle Production: Malaysia Case,” The Canadian Center of Science and Education,
November 30, 2016.
[2] T. R. Hawkins, Bhawna Singh, Guillaume Majeau-Bettez and Anders Hammer
Strømman, “Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and
Electric Vehicles,” Journal of Industrial Ecology, 2012.
[3] Xin He, Han Hao, Qinyu Qiao, Fuquan Zhao and Zongwei Liu, “Life cycle greenhouse
gas emissions of Electric Vehicles in China: Combining the vehicle cycle and fuel
cycle,” Elsevier Energy, 14 April 2019.
[4] Lluc Canals Casals, Dr. Egoitz Martinez Laserna, Beatriz Amante García and Nerea
Nieto., “Sustainability analysis of the electric vehicle use in Europe for CO2 emissions
reduction,” Journal of Cleaner Production, 17 March 2016.
[5] P. Plötz, Niklas Jakobsson and Frances Sprei, “On the distribution of individual daily
driving distances,” Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 25 April 2017.
11
[6] Christian Bauer, Johannes Hofer, Hans-Jörg Althaus, Andrea Del Duce and Andrew
Simons, “The environmental performance of current and future passenger vehicles: Life
cycle assessment based on a novel scenario analysis,” Applied Energy, 2015.
[7] Fan Yang, Yuanyuan Xie, Yelin Deng and Chris Yuan, “Temporal environmental and
economic performance of electric vehicle and conventional vehicle: A comparative study
on their US operations,” Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 2021.
[8] Xinyu Liu, Krishna Reddi, Amgad Elgowainy, Henning Lohse-Busch, Michael Wang
and Neha Rustagi, “Comparison of well-to-wheels energy use and emissions of a
hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicle relative to a conventional gasoline-powered internal
combustion engine vehicle,” ScienceDirect, 2019.
[9] Hossein Mousazadeh, Alireza Keyhani, Hossein Mobli, Ugo Bardi, Ginevra Lombardi
and Toufic el Asmar, “Environmental assessment of RAMseS multipurpose electric
vehicle compared to a conventional combustion engine vehicle,” Cleaner Production,
2009.
[10] Kamilė Petrauskienė, Rasa Tverskytė and Jolanta Dvarionienė, “Environmental and
economic benefits of electric, hybrid and conventional vehicle treatment: A case study of
Lithuania,” Waste Management, 2022.
[11] Aidin Teimouri, Kaveh Zayer Kabeh, Sina Changizian, Pouria Ahmadi and Mehdi
Mortazavi, “Comparative lifecycle assessment of hydrogen fuel cell, electric, CNG, and
gasoline-powered vehicles under real driving conditions,” Hydrogen Energy, vol. 47, no.
89, pp. 37990-38002, 2022.
12