life cycle analysis for hybrid and electric vehicles
DESCRIPTION
An overview of potential future lifecycle impacts of low carbon vehicles. Shifting to hybrid and electric vehicles will mean that an increasing share of lifecycle GHG emissions come from the production of the vehicle and electricity. Presentation given at the annual LowCVP conference by Nik Hill, knowledge leader for transport technology at Ricardo-AEATRANSCRIPT
© Ricardo-AEA Ltd
www.ricardo-aea.com
Nikolas Hill
Knowledge Leader – Transport Technology and Fuels
Ricardo-AEA
Life-Cycle Assessment for Hybrid
and Electric Vehicles “Beyond the Tailpipe” LowCVP Annual Conference 2013
11th July 2013
© Ricardo-AEA Ltd Unclassified – Public Domain 2 11th July 2013
Life-Cycle Assessment in the automotive sector and significance for hybrid and electric vehicles
Project for CCC on LCE (life cycle emissions) for future low carbon technologies:
‒ Scope and objectives
‒ Lifecycle stages and range of values in the literature
‒ Baseline assumptions for future LCE calculation tool
‒ Key results from the analysis
‒ Summary and conclusions
Overall potential implications for policy and businesses
Overview
© Ricardo-AEA Ltd Unclassified – Public Domain 3 11th July 2013
Current tailpipe CO2 metric insufficient to compare impacts of hybrid and electric vehicles due to upstream fuel/vehicle production GHG
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is key for future vehicle technology and fuel comparisons
Well-to-wheel (WTW) is the specific LCA used for transport fuel/vehicle systems (but limited to the fuel itself) – used for biofuels in particular
LCA Methodologies Part 1: Use of LCA in the automotive sector
Life Cycle Assessment Framework
Goal and
Scope
Definition
Inventory
Analysis
Impact
Assessment
Interpretation
LCA ISO (14040/14044) standards only provide general guidelines different models, methodologies and assumptions are often used
Many OEMs conduct ISO compliant/high quality LCA studies of their vehicles as part of their Environmental Management strategies
Several OEMs publish the results from their LCA, but it is not clear if different OEMs use the same set of assumptions or input data sets
© Ricardo-AEA Ltd Unclassified – Public Domain 4 11th July 2013
Currently, there are no automotive targets specifically aimed at reducing CO2 from production of the whole vehicle
WTT emissions are also not factored into vehicle CO2 regulations
Issues for both hybrid and electric vehicles:
Availability of reliable real-world performance data (i.e. MJ/km)
Wide range of literature reported values for battery GHG intensity
Uncertainty on battery lifetime performance/potential replacement
Issues for plug-in EVs only (PHEVs, REEVs and BEVs):
Very large variation in regional electricity GHG intensity and in estimates for future decarbonisation affects all lifecycle stages
Average or marginal electricity? Recharge at night or in daytime?
Most studies also DON’T typically account for:
a) Upstream emissions of fuels used in electricity generation (+16% for UK)
b) Projected changes in electricity GHG intensity over the vehicle lifetime
Accounting for recharging losses (often excluded)
LCA Methodologies Part 2: Key considerations for hybrid and electric vehicles
© Ricardo-AEA Ltd Unclassified – Public Domain 5 11th July 2013
Previous CCC advice include ‘low-carbon’ technologies which reduce
emissions at point-of-use relative to counterfactual
Ricardo-AEA undertook an analysis considering lifecycle emissions
(LCEs) for various technologies in several sectors, going beyond the
point-of-use to provide estimates from the current situation out to 2050
NOT a detailed LCA: objective was to provide estimates (from existing
studies) of current LCEs for UK circumstances and project to 2050
Current LCEs are broken down into relevant categories to allow:
a) Investigation of the influence of key geographical parameters on overall emissions
b) Separation of these emissions into UK and non-UK emissions
c) Exploration of sensitivities for key components and scenarios on how these
emissions might be reduced
Work involved a literature review and development of spread sheet
calculation tools for the different technology areas
Future impacts of biofuel use excluded from analysis (set at 2012 mix)
Current and Future Lifecycle Emissions of Key ‘Low Carbon’
Technologies and Alternatives, a project for CCC
© Ricardo-AEA Ltd Unclassified – Public Domain 6 11th July 2013
Vehicle Manufacture
Vehicle Transport
Vehicle Operation
Refuelling Infrastructure
End of Life Disposal
• Five key stages were identified as accounting for the most significant GHG emission components of the road vehicle lifecycle (that could also reasonably be quantified)
The road vehicle lifecycle
Materials (Fe, Al, etc)
Components
Manufacturing energy
Road
Rail
Ship
Energy Consumption
Maintenance
Refrigerant leakage
Conventional fuels
Electric recharging
Hydrogen refuelling
Recycling
Refrigerant
Fuel use
© Ricardo-AEA Ltd Unclassified – Public Domain 7 11th July 2013
Principal differences between values in the studies were largely due to a combination of the following factors / assumptions for the analysis: (i) lifetime km (= vehicle lifetime x annual km), (ii) vehicle size/specification, (iii) lifecycle stages covered, (iv) grid electricity GHG intensity, (v) batteries used (size in kg or kWh, assumptions on GHG intensity of manufacture)
Range of overall LCEs in the literature Road transport technologies
Wide range of studies identified and preliminarily screened for suitability
Studies selected to be taken forward for further analysis included some or all of the following elements:
Compared as many technologies as possible
Provided sufficient detail/ breakdown for the analysis
Provided additional information/detail on certain aspects (e.g. battery tech, refuelling infrastructure, etc)
Other studies also used to provide/supplement key data
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
ICE HEV PHEV REEV BEV
Car
g C
O2e/K
m
Patterson et al. 2011
Samaras & Meisterling2008
Hawkins et al. 2012
Ma et al. 2012
Lucas et al. 2012
Helms et al, 2010
Zamel & Li 2006
Burnham et al. 2006
[This study]
© Ricardo-AEA Ltd Unclassified – Public Domain 8 11th July 2013
Fuel factors are average over the operational lifetime for a vehicle in a given year
Future vehicle performance/characteristics from CCC modelling and recent publications
Base case scenario assumptions: Energy and materials intensity trajectories, vehicle characteristics
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
kg
CO
2/k
g
Steel (Base)
Steel-Base-UK
Steel-Base-OECDEurope
Steel-Base-OECDOther
Steel-Base-CarAverage
Steel-Base-HGVAverage
Steel-Base-nonOECD
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
kg
CO
2/k
g
Aluminium (Base)
Aluminium-Base-UK
Aluminium-Base-OECD Europe
Aluminium-Base-OECD Other
Aluminium-Base-CarAverage
Aluminium-Base-HGV Average
Aluminium-Base-nonOECD
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
kg
CO
2/k
Wh
Battery (Base)
Battery-Base-UK
Battery-Base-OECDEurope
Battery-Base-OECDOther
Battery-Base-CarAverage
Battery-Base-HGVAverage
Battery-Base-nonOECD
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
gC
O2/k
Wh
(life
tim
e a
vera
ge)
Fuels (Base)
Petrol Base UK
Diesel Base UK
Electricity Base UK
Hydrogen Base UK
Natural gas Base UK
© Ricardo-AEA Ltd Unclassified – Public Domain 9 11th July 2013
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2010 ICE Car 2010 BEV Car
gCO
2e
/km
Emissions Breakdown (excluding operational fuel)
Dismantalling refrigerant leakage
Dismantalling fuel use
Refuelling infrastructure
Operation Refrigerant Leakage
Operation Maintenance
Transport Total
Manufacture fuel use
Manufacture Refrigerant Leakage
Components Battery
Materials Other
Materials CFRP
Materials Textile
Materials Glass
Materials Rubber
Materials Plastics
Materials Magnesium
Materials Aluminium
Materials Iron & Steel
87%
13%
Petrol ICE Car
Fuel
Other
2010
52%48%
BEV Car
Fuel
Other
2010
Breakdown of LCEs from the developed model: Detailed split for 2010 Petrol ICE and BEV cars
The uncertainty in and
significance of GHG
emissions from battery
production in the
literature prompted more
detailed investigation of
the component
breakdown in order to
better understand
potential future trajectory
/ key sensitivities
Total g/km
Total g/km
* Battery production GHG intensity based on intermediate value in literature from Ricardo (2012)
*
© Ricardo-AEA Ltd Unclassified – Public Domain 10 11th July 2013
Breakdown of LCEs from the developed model: Future trajectory of detailed split for BEV cars (baseline)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
gCO
2e
/km
Emissions Breakdown (excluding operational fuel) - BEV CarDismantalling refrigerant leakage
Dismantalling fuel use
Refuelling infrastructure
Operation Refrigerant Leakage
Operation Maintenance
Transport Total
Manufacture fuel use
Manufacture Refrigerant Leakage
Components Battery
Materials Other
Materials CFRP
Materials Textile
Materials Glass
Materials Rubber
Materials Plastics
Materials Magnesium
Materials Aluminium
Materials Iron & Steel
Significance of batteries in overall LCE footprint of BEVs is anticipated to decrease significantly in the long term under the base case:
Battery GHG reduction due to:
i. Reduced battery weight (/materials);
ii. Decarbonised manufacturing energy
iii. Improved recycling
iv.Reduced GHG intensity of materials used
© Ricardo-AEA Ltd Unclassified – Public Domain 11 11th July 2013
2010 petrol car = 159.5 gCO2/km (test cycle)
ICE > HEV > PHEV > REEV > BEV
Manufacturing emissions share increases in future, particularly for BEVs
Reduced savings from EVs (relative to ICE) - but total LCEs still much lower than for ICE
Recharging infrastructure a small but still significant component (but more uncertainty)
5 gCO2e/km due to refrigerants in 2010
Base case scenario for cars: Breakdown by lifecycle stage
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
gCO
2e
/km
Petrol ICE Car, Scenario 1: Base case
Disposal
Infrastructure
Operation
Transport
Manufacture
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
gCO
2e
/km
BEV Car, Scenario 1: Base case
Disposal
Infrastructure
Operation
Transport
Manufacture
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
gCO
2e
/km
Petrol PHEV Car, Scenario 1: Base case
Disposal
Infrastructure
Operation
Transport
Manufacture
© Ricardo-AEA Ltd Unclassified – Public Domain 12 11th July 2013
Proportion of emissions outside UK doesn’t change much over time for ICE (2010: ~8%) and PHEV (2010: ~16%) technologies
>40% of BEV emissions are outside of the UK in 2010, potentially rising to 66% by 2050 (due to vehicle and battery production)
In the Worst Case scenario (with very high emissions due mainly to the batteries) over 86% of BEV LCE could occur outside of the UK by 2050 (also due to reduction in operational LCE)
Base case scenario for cars: Emissions in the UK vs overseas
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
gCO
2e
/km
Petrol ICE Car, Scenario 1: Base case
NonUKEmissions
UK Emissions
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
gCO
2e
/km
Petrol PHEV Car, Scenario 1: Base case
NonUKEmissions
UK Emissions
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
gCO
2e
/km
BEV Car, Scenario 1: Base case
NonUKEmissions
UK Emissions
© Ricardo-AEA Ltd Unclassified – Public Domain 13 11th July 2013
78%
22%
Petrol PHEV Car
Fuel
Other
2010
84%
16%
Petrol PHEV Car
Fuel
Other
2050
52%48%
BEV Car
Fuel
Other
2010
7%
93%
BEV Car
Fuel
Other
2050
87%
13%
Petrol ICE Car
Fuel
Other
2010
91%
9%
Petrol ICE Car
Fuel
Other
2050
Base case scenario for cars: Split of LCE for different powertrains for 2010 and 2050
Total 265 g/km
Total 127 g/km Total 78 g/km
Total 136 g/km Total 185 g/km
Total 16 g/km
© Ricardo-AEA Ltd Unclassified – Public Domain 14 11th July 2013
Battery developments are critical to achieve the maximum savings potential (2050:-90%)
Worst case BEVs show only 26% reduction on base ICE in 2050 (at current biofuel levels). BUT battery replacement unlikely under current lifetime km assumptions versus current manufacturer warranties
BEVs show 55% improvement over Petrol ICE in 2050 for more realistic alternate worst case + high lifetime km scenario (16,000 mi/yr = 57 g/km LCEs for BEVs)
Sensitivity analysis for cars: Best Case and Worst Case
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
gCO
2e
/ k
m
Year
Sensitivity Range
Petrol ICE Car (best)
Petrol PHEV Car (best)
BEV Car (best)
Petrol ICE Car (worst)
Petrol PHEV Car (worst)
BEV Car (worst)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2050 2010 2050 2010 2050 2010 2050 2010 2050
Petrol ICECar
Petrol HEVCar
Petrol PHEVCar
Petrol REEVCar
BEV Car
gCO
2e
/km
Scenario 9: Best Case
Disposal
Infrastructure
Operation
Transport
Batteryreplacement
Manufacture
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2050 2010 2050 2010 2050 2010 2050 2010 2050
Petrol ICECar
Petrol HEVCar
Petrol PHEVCar
Petrol REEVCar
BEV Car
gCO
2e
/km
Scenario 10: Worst Case
Disposal
Infrastructure
Operation
Transport
Batteryreplacement
Manufacture
© Ricardo-AEA Ltd Unclassified – Public Domain 15 11th July 2013
Base scenario for 2010 shows that operational GHG emissions over lifetime of vehicle
decrease in the following order ICE > equivalent HEV > PHEV > REEV > BEV
Sensitivity analysis highlighted battery developments are critical to achieve the max.
GHG savings for BEVs (and REEVs, PHEVs to a lesser extent):
‒ Improvements in battery cycle/lifetime to minimise the likelihood of replacements
‒ Improvements in battery energy density to reduce material use
‒ Improvements in recycling practices to generate savings through recovered materials
‒ Regional (UK/European) battery production to minimise GHG
‒ Improvements in battery manufacture GHG intensity (i.e. production energy and
materials)
BUT in worst case scenario with high lifetime km (+one battery replacement), BEVs still
have ~55% reduction on equivalent ICE by 2050 (at current UK average biofuel levels)
Future NonUK emissions share unlikely to increase much for ICE (~9%) and PHEV
(~18%), but could increase significantly for BEV (currently 41%, potentially rising to
66% by 2050). (Primarily from significant reduction in operational, other UK elements)
Recharging infrastructure more uncertain; a small but likely still significant component
(>3% for BEVs in 2010), but could be potentially more significant in the longer term.
Summary and Conclusions: Part 1 – From Ricardo-AEA study for CCC
© Ricardo-AEA Ltd Unclassified – Public Domain 16 11th July 2013
Publication of industry LCA studies would help facilitate understanding
Ideally need to track vehicle LCA in a more consistent basis before could even think about whether/how a regulatory approach might be adopted (or not)
Future vehicle CO2 regulations should likely at least factor in WTW emissions
Recommendations from Ricardo (2011) report for LowCVP are still relevant:
− Consider a new CO2 metric based on the GHG emissions emitted during vehicle production [tCO2e] (and more tightly define scope/specification for this)
− Consider targets aimed at reducing the life cycle CO2 [tCO2e]
− Consider the fiscal and regulatory framework in which vehicles are sold, used and disposed
Need to develop a better understanding of battery production emissions and impacts of technology development and ensure future developments do significantly reduce battery production/disposal emissions
Further research is also needed to quantify the relative impacts of different infrastructure types/mixes, and the likely 2050 requirements
Summary and Conclusions: Part 2 – Potential implications for policy and businesses
© Ricardo-AEA Ltd Unclassified – Public Domain 17 11th July 2013
For further information see full study report available from CCC’s website at:
http://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Ricardo-
AEA-lifecycle-emissions-low-carbon-technologies-April-2013.pdf
Further information
© Ricardo-AEA Ltd
www.ricardo-aea.com
T:
E:
W:
Ricardo-AEA Ltd
Gemini Building,
Fermi Avenue,
Harwell, Didcot,
Oxfordshire,
OX11 0QR,
Nikolas Hill
Knowledge Leader – Transport Technology and Fuels
+44 (0)1235 753522
www.ricardo-aea.com