lca

A Step-by-Step Examination of Electric

Vehicle Life Cycle Analysis

Jennifer B. Dunn1, Andrew Burnham1, Michael Wang1, Amgad Elgowainy1, Gerfried Jungmeier2, Linda Gaines1

1. Energy Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory

2. Institute for Water, Energy, and Sustainability, JOANNEUM RESEARCH, Austria

LCA XIII Orlando, Florida

October 1, 2013

Vehicle and fuel cycles make up electric vehicle

life cycle analysis

2

Material Acquisition and Production

Vehicle Assembly Disposal and Recycling

Battery Assembly


Use

Feedstock Production

Feedstock Processing to Fuel

Fuel Distribution

Key issues in the fuel cycle

3

Feedstock Production

Feedstock Processing to Fuel

Fuel Distribution

Feedstock identity (coal, biomass, natural gas, wind)

Efficiency For electricity:

average or marginal use

Key issues in the vehicle cycle

4


Vehicle Assembly Use Disposal and Recycling

Battery Assembly


Energy intensity of key materials (steel,

aluminum, plastics)

Scrap Rates Variability in composition

Drive cycles

Technology availability Regulations

Energy intensity

Cathode identity Variation in energy intensity in

recovery of key metals

Overarching life cycle analysis issues

5

System Boundary

Process

Co-product handling Emerging technologies

have little data

What is the right vehicle for the baseline?

Recycled materials?

Product A

Product B

State of electric vehicle life cycle analysis

Overall electric vehicle production and use

– Greater emphasis on electricity production for use than on vehicle production in literature

– Electricity source used to power EVs differs among studies, especially by country

– Unclear how electric vehicle use will affect grid

– Energy intensities associated with driving varies based on drive cycle and other assumptions (0.4 to 0.8 MJ/km)

– Different lifetimes (150,000 – 250,000 km)

Battery production and end-of-life

– Different cathode materials will cause different impacts

– Assembly energy intensity differs by a factor of 20 in literature reports

– Most EV LCAs do not include battery recycling, which can reduce impacts. Infrastructure and technology, however, are still in development.

Except for several specific scenarios involving carbon-intensive electricity sources, most studies report that electric vehicles offer lower life-cycle energy consumption and GHG emissions than comparable conventional vehicles.

6

Dunn et al. Env. Sci. Technol., 2012, 46:12704 – 12710 Hawkins et al. , IJLCA, 2012, 17:997 – 1014.

Developing a materials inventory for vehicles

7

Autonomie1 Vehicle fuel economy

Vehicle weight

ASCM2 Dismantling Reports Other literature Engineering Calculations

Vehicle Components • Body • Powertrain • Transmission • Chassis • Electric traction motor • Generator • Electronic controller

Battery • Startup (Pb-Acid) • Electric-drive

• Ni-MH • Li-ion

Fluids • Engine oil • Power steering fluid • Brake fluid • Transmission fluid • Powertrain coolant • Windshield fluid • Adhesives

1. Model developed at Argonne 2. Automotive System Cost Model, IBIS Associates and Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Steel, plastics, iron dominate passenger car materials

8

Component ICEV PHEV20 EV Production Energy Intensity

(MJ/kg)

Steel 62.3% 66.3% 66.4% 47

Cast iron 10.9% 5.3% 2.0% 35

Wrought aluminum 2.2% 1.8% 1.0% 141

Cast aluminum 4.6% 4.7% 5.5% 41

Copper/brass 1.9% 4.3% 4.7% 39

Magnesium 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 350

Glass 2.9% 3.0% 3.5% 20

Plastics 11.1% 10.6% 12.1% 89

Rubber 2.3% 1.7% 1.8% 55

Others 1.9% 2.2% 3.0% -

A. Burnham. “Update Vehicle Specifications in the GREET Vehicle-Cycle Model.” July 2012. GREET2_2012 Both at greet.es.anl.gov

Note: Table excludes battery

Energy and GHG intensities of key vehicle materials

are influenced by upstream and transformational

processes Steel

– Composite material used in calculations is 74% virgin, 26% recycled

– Virgin steel is combination of galvanized, cold- and hot-rolled steel

– Key contributor is steel production process itself

– Scrap rates during stamping can range from 38% to 42%

Aluminum – Alumina electro-reduction process is main electricity consumer

– Electricity mix varies by aluminum production facility

– Scrap rates influence results

Plastics – Fugitive methane emissions upstream of production play a role

– Plastic transformation processes contribute 10-22% of plastics cradle-to-gate energy intensity, 11-48% of cradle-to-gate GHG emissions

9 Burnham et al., J. Industrial Ecology, 2013

Argonne life-cycle inventory covers

battery production and recycling

10

Lithium Brine

Li2CO3

Soda Ash

Lime

HCl

H2SO4

Alcohol

Mn2O3

LiMn2O4

PVDF (binder)

NMP (binder solvent)

LiPF6

Ethylene Carbonate

Dimethyl Carbonate

BMS

Graphite

Pet Coke

Assembly

Use

Recycling/Re-use/Disposal

Cathode Active Material Anode Binder Electrolyte BMS

Aluminum

Steel

Copper

Thermal Insulation

Plastics

Pyrometallurgical

Hydrometallurgical

Direct Physical

Intermediate Physical

Materials production

Materials production

Material Production

New GREET data

Battery assembly

Battery use (not included)

Battery recycling

Existing GREET data

Analysis Approach:

Top-Down versus Process-Level

Study Approach Cathode Matl Prod

(MJ/kg battery)

Assembly Energy

Consumption (MJ/kg battery)

% Assembly

Notter et al. 2010

Process-level

LiMn2O4 103 1.3 1.2%

Majeau-Bettez et al.

2011 Top-down

NCM and LiFePO4

125-129 80 39%

Zackrisson et al. 2010

Top-down LeFePO4 Not given 74 -

Dunn et al. 2012

Process-level

LiMn2O4 75-79 4.3 5%

If assembly is a large fraction of the cradle-to-gate impacts, recycling may be of minimal benefit.

Battery recycling could reduce energy consumption

of producing battery by up to 50%

12

J. B. Dunn et al. Env. Sci. and Technol., 2012, 46:12704 – 12710

Battery consumes at most 3% of life-cycle energy

13

Key: LMO: LiMn2O4 cathode LCO: LiCoO2 cathode

Parameters: Technology year = 2015 Lifetime: 260,000 km Fuel Economy: PHEV CD = 78 mpgge PHEV CS = 28 mpg BEV = 80 mpgge ICEV = 23 mpg Grid mix = US Avg 40% Coal 26% Nat Gas 21% Nuclear 13% Other ICEV fuel and PHEV CS fuel = Gasoline

In most electricity generation scenarios, EVs and

PHEV30s have less petroleum consumption and

GHG emissions on a life-cycle basis than ICEs

14 Active material = LMO

100,000 km decrease in vehicle lifetime increases

PHEV and BEV impacts per km but not above those

of ICE

15

ICEV

US Grid Battery with LMO cathode

Summary of IEA Task 19 effort Life Cycle Assessment of Electric Vehicles - From raw material

resources to waste management of vehicles with an electric drivetrain

Inform policy and decision makers about electric vehicle LCA results and methodology

Improve end of life management of EVs by developing understanding of impacts of end-of-life options

Gain insight into how best to design for recyclability and minimal resource consumption

Establish a EV LCA research platform, including end-of-life

Disseminate EV LCA results and identify trends, data gaps

Hold a series of workshops to engage EV LCA experts in discussing key EV LCA data and methodology issues

– EV LCA methodology: December 7, 2012 in Braunschweig, Germany

– Material and Energy Flows: April 25-26, 2013 at Argonne National Laboratory

– End-of-life: October 9-10, 2013 in Davos, Switzerland

– Electricity production and distribution for EVs – to be determined

– Concluding workshop – to be determined

16 More information: http://www.ieahev.org/tasks/task-19-life-cycle-assessment-of-evs/

Concluding Remarks

Use phase drives electric vehicle LCA results and is influenced by a number of uncertainties – Drive cycle and resulting energy intensity of vehicle operation

– Electricity source, charging patterns

Makeup of EVs is somewhat uncertain given that these vehicles are not yet produced in large numbers

Transparency in underlying data and methodology for EV LCA is critical

Vehicle production impacts seem larger for EVs than for conventional vehicles but in the context of the vehicles’ overall life cycle, EVs have lower GHG emissions and energy consumption impacts.

17

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the Vehicle Technology Office of the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-06CH11357. We acknowledge David Howell and Jake Ward for his support and guidance.

18

For more information: GREET website: greet.es.anl.gov Battery analysis website: http://www.transportation.anl.gov/technology_analysis/battery_recycling.html