IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i19p10992-d649500.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Life Cycle Environmental Impact Comparison between Traditional, Hybrid, and Electric Vehicles in the European Context

Author

Listed:
  • Emiliano Pipitone

    (Department of Engineering, University of Palermo, 90128 Palermo, Italy)

  • Salvatore Caltabellotta

    (Department of Engineering, University of Palermo, 90128 Palermo, Italy)

  • Leonardo Occhipinti

    (Department of Engineering, University of Palermo, 90128 Palermo, Italy)

Abstract

Global warming (GW) and urban pollution focused a great interest on hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) and battery electric vehicles (BEVs) as cleaner alternatives to traditional internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). The environmental impact related to the use of both ICEV and HEV mainly depends on the fossil fuel used by the thermal engines, while, in the case of the BEV, depends on the energy sources employed to produce electricity. Moreover, the production phase of each vehicle may also have a relevant environmental impact, due to the manufacturing processes and the materials employed. Starting from these considerations, the authors carried out a fair comparison of the environmental impact generated by three different vehicles characterized by different propulsion technology, i.e., an ICEV, an HEV, and a BEV, following the life cycle analysis methodology, i.e., taking into account five different environmental impact categories generated during all phases of the entire life of the vehicles, from raw material collection and parts production, to vehicle assembly and on-road use, finishing hence with the disposal phase. An extensive scenario analysis was also performed considering different electricity mixes and vehicle lifetime mileages. The results of this study confirmed the importance of the life cycle approach for the correct determination of the real impact related to the use of passenger cars and showed that the GW impact of a BEV during its entire life amounts to roughly 60% of an equivalent ICEV, while acidifying emissions and particulate matter were doubled. The HEV confirmed an excellent alternative to ICEV, showing good compromise between GW impact (85% with respect to the ICEV), terrestrial acidification, and particulate formation (similar to the ICEV). In regard to the mineral source deployment, a serious concern derives from the lithium-ion battery production for BEV. The results of the scenario analysis highlight how the environmental impact of a BEV may be altered by the lifetime mileage of the vehicle, and how the carbon footprint of the electricity used may nullify the ecological advantage of the BEV.

Suggested Citation

  • Emiliano Pipitone & Salvatore Caltabellotta & Leonardo Occhipinti, 2021. "A Life Cycle Environmental Impact Comparison between Traditional, Hybrid, and Electric Vehicles in the European Context," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-32, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:19:p:10992-:d:649500
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/19/10992/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/19/10992/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bauer, Christian & Hofer, Johannes & Althaus, Hans-Jörg & Del Duce, Andrea & Simons, Andrew, 2015. "The environmental performance of current and future passenger vehicles: Life cycle assessment based on a novel scenario analysis framework," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 871-883.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Shafayat Rashid & Emanuele Pagone, 2023. "Cradle-to-Grave Lifecycle Environmental Assessment of Hybrid Electric Vehicles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-23, July.
    2. Phillip K. Agbesi & Rico Ruffino & Marko Hakovirta, 2023. "The development of sustainable electric vehicle business ecosystems," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 3(8), pages 1-59, August.
    3. Samantha Heiberg & Emily Emond & Cody Allen & Dheeraj Raya & Venkataramana Gadhamshetty & Saurabh Sudha Dhiman & Achyuth Ravilla & Ilke Celik, 2023. "Environmental Impact Assessment of Autonomous Transportation Systems," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(13), pages 1-13, June.
    4. Zia Muhammad & Zahid Anwar & Bilal Saleem & Jahanzeb Shahid, 2023. "Emerging Cybersecurity and Privacy Threats to Electric Vehicles and Their Impact on Human and Environmental Sustainability," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(3), pages 1-30, January.
    5. Justus Poschmann & Vanessa Bach & Matthias Finkbeiner, 2023. "Decarbonization Potentials for Automotive Supply Chains: Emission-Intensity Pathways of Carbon-Intensive Hotspots of Battery Electric Vehicles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-20, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Desreveaux, A. & Bouscayrol, A. & Trigui, R. & Hittinger, E. & Castex, E. & Sirbu, G.M., 2023. "Accurate energy consumption for comparison of climate change impact of thermal and electric vehicles," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 268(C).
    2. Audoly, Richard & Vogt-Schilb, Adrien & Guivarch, Céline & Pfeiffer, Alexander, 2018. "Pathways toward zero-carbon electricity required for climate stabilization," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 225(C), pages 884-901.
    3. Nadia Belmonte & Carlo Luetto & Stefano Staulo & Paola Rizzi & Marcello Baricco, 2017. "Case Studies of Energy Storage with Fuel Cells and Batteries for Stationary and Mobile Applications," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, March.
    4. Nenming Wang & Guwen Tang, 2022. "A Review on Environmental Efficiency Evaluation of New Energy Vehicles Using Life Cycle Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-35, March.
    5. AlSabbagh, Maha & Siu, Yim Ling & Guehnemann, Astrid & Barrett, John, 2017. "Integrated approach to the assessment of CO2e-mitigation measures for the road passenger transport sector in Bahrain," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 203-215.
    6. Cox, Brian & Bauer, Christian & Mendoza Beltran, Angelica & van Vuuren, Detlef P. & Mutel, Christopher L., 2020. "Life cycle environmental and cost comparison of current and future passenger cars under different energy scenarios," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 269(C).
    7. Ehrenstein, Michael & Galán-Martín, Ángel & Tulus, Victor & Guillén-Gosálbez, Gonzalo, 2020. "Optimising fuel supply chains within planetary boundaries: A case study of hydrogen for road transport in the UK," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 276(C).
    8. Qiao, Qinyu & Zhao, Fuquan & Liu, Zongwei & Jiang, Shuhua & Hao, Han, 2017. "Cradle-to-gate greenhouse gas emissions of battery electric and internal combustion engine vehicles in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 204(C), pages 1399-1411.
    9. Zacharopoulos, Leon & Thonemann, Nils & Dumeier, Marcel & Geldermann, Jutta, 2023. "Environmental optimization of the charge of battery electric vehicles," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 329(C).
    10. Felipe Cerdas & Paul Titscher & Nicolas Bognar & Richard Schmuch & Martin Winter & Arno Kwade & Christoph Herrmann, 2018. "Exploring the Effect of Increased Energy Density on the Environmental Impacts of Traction Batteries: A Comparison of Energy Optimized Lithium-Ion and Lithium-Sulfur Batteries for Mobility Applications," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-20, January.
    11. Kinsella, L. & Stefaniec, A. & Foley, A. & Caulfield, B., 2023. "Pathways to decarbonising the transport sector: The impacts of electrifying taxi fleets," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    12. Troy, Stefanie & Schreiber, Andrea & Reppert, Thorsten & Gehrke, Hans-Gregor & Finsterbusch, Martin & Uhlenbruck, Sven & Stenzel, Peter, 2016. "Life Cycle Assessment and resource analysis of all-solid-state batteries," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 757-767.
    13. Siqin Xiong & Junping Ji & Xiaoming Ma, 2019. "Comparative Life Cycle Energy and GHG Emission Analysis for BEVs and PhEVs: A Case Study in China," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-17, March.
    14. Wang, Wei & Wu, Yufeng, 2017. "An overview of recycling and treatment of spent LiFePO4 batteries in China," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 233-243.
    15. Belmonte, N. & Staulo, S. & Fiorot, S. & Luetto, C. & Rizzi, P. & Baricco, M., 2018. "Fuel cell powered octocopter for inspection of mobile cranes: Design, cost analysis and environmental impacts," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 556-565.
    16. Robin Smit & Daniel William Kennedy, 2022. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Performance of Electric and Fossil-Fueled Passenger Vehicles with Uncertainty Estimates Using a Probabilistic Life-Cycle Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-29, March.
    17. Paul Wolfram & Qingshi Tu & Niko Heeren & Stefan Pauliuk & Edgar G. Hertwich, 2021. "Material efficiency and climate change mitigation of passenger vehicles," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 25(2), pages 494-510, April.
    18. Oda, Hiromu & Noguchi, Hiroki & Fuse, Masaaki, 2022. "Review of life cycle assessment for automobiles: A meta-analysis-based approach," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    19. Eckard Helmers & Johannes Dietz & Martin Weiss, 2020. "Sensitivity Analysis in the Life-Cycle Assessment of Electric vs. Combustion Engine Cars under Approximate Real-World Conditions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-31, February.
    20. Cox, Brian L. & Mutel, Christopher L., 2018. "The environmental and cost performance of current and future motorcycles," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 1013-1024.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:19:p:10992-:d:649500. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.