Open Access

This study compares the environmental impacts of petrol, diesel, natural gas, and electric vehicles using a process-based attributional life cycle assessment (LCA) and the ReCiPe characterization method that captures 18 impact categories and the single score endpoints. Unlike common practice, we derive the cradle-to-grave inventories from an originally combustion engine VW Caddy that was disassembled and electrified in our laboratory, and its energy consumption was measured on the road. Ecoivent 2.2 and 3.0 emission inventories were contrasted exhibiting basically insignificant impact deviations. Ecoinvent 3.0 emission inventory for the diesel car was additionally updated with recent real-world close emission values and revealed strong increases over four midpoint impact categories, when matched with the standard Ecoinvent 3.0 emission inventory. Producing batteries with photovoltaic electricity instead of Chinese coal-based electricity decreases climate impacts of battery production by 69%. Break-even mileages for the electric VW Caddy to pass the combustion engine models under various conditions in terms of climate change impact ranged from 17,000 to 310,000 km. Break-even mileages, when contrasting the VW Caddy and a mini car (SMART), which was as well electrified, did not show systematic differences. Also, CO2-eq emissions in terms of passenger kilometers travelled (54–158 g CO2-eq/PKT) are fairly similar based on 1 person travelling in the mini car and 1.57 persons in the mid-sized car (VW Caddy). Additionally, under optimized conditions (battery production and use phase utilizing renewable electricity), the two electric cars can compete well in terms of CO2-eq emissions per passenger kilometer with other traffic modes (diesel bus, coach, trains) over lifetime. Only electric buses were found to have lower life cycle carbon emissions (27–52 g CO2-eq/PKT) than the two electric passenger cars.

Background: Electric vehicles have been identified as being a key technology in reducing future emissions and energy consumption in the mobility sector. The focus of this article is to review and assess the energy efficiency and the environmental impact of battery electric cars (BEV), which is the only technical alternative on the market available today to vehicles with internal combustion engine (ICEV). Electricity onboard a car can be provided either by a battery or a fuel cell (FCV). The technical structure of BEV is described, clarifying that it is relatively simple compared to ICEV. Following that, ICEV can be ‘e-converted’ by experienced personnel. Such an e-conversion project generated reality-close data reported here. Results: Practicability of today's BEV is discussed, revealing that particularly small-size BEVs are useful. This article reports on an e-conversion of a used Smart. Measurements on this car, prior and after conversion, confirmed a fourfold energy efficiency advantage of BEV over ICEV, as supposed in literature. Preliminary energy efficiency data of FCV are reviewed being only slightly lower compared to BEV. However, well-to-wheel efficiency suffers from 47% to 63% energy loss during hydrogen production. With respect to energy efficiency, BEVs are found to represent the only alternative to ICEV. This, however, is only true if the electricity is provided by very efficient power plants or better by renewable energy production. Literature data on energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission by ICEV compared to BEV suffer from a 25% underestimation of ICEV-standardized driving cycle numbers in relation to street conditions so far. Literature data available for BEV, on the other hand, were mostly modeled and based on relatively heavy BEV as well as driving conditions, which do not represent the most useful field of BEV operation. Literature data have been compared with measurements based on the converted Smart, revealing a distinct GHG emissions advantage due to the German electricity net conditions, which can be considerably extended by charging electricity from renewable sources. Life cycle carbon footprint of BEV is reviewed based on literature data with emphasis on lithium-ion batteries. Battery life cycle assessment (LCA) data available in literature, so far, vary significantly by a factor of up to 5.6 depending on LCA methodology approach, but also with respect to the battery chemistry. Carbon footprint over 100,000 km calculated for the converted 10-year-old Smart exhibits a possible reduction of over 80% in comparison to the Smart with internal combustion engine. Conclusion: Findings of the article confirm that the electric car can serve as a suitable instrument towards a much more sustainable future in mobility. This is particularly true for small-size BEV, which is underrepresented in LCA literature data so far. While CO2-LCA of BEV seems to be relatively well known apart from the battery, life cycle impact of BEV in categories other than the global warming potential reveals a complex and still incomplete picture. Since technology of the electric car is of limited complexity with the exception of the battery, used cars can also be converted from combustion to electric. This way, it seems possible to reduce CO2-equivalent emissions by 80% (factor 5 efficiency improvement).

A comprehensive overview is provided evaluating direct real-world CO2 emissions of both diesel and petrol cars newly registered in Europe between 1995 and 2015. Before 2011, European diesel cars emitted less CO2 per kilometre than petrol cars, but since then there is no appreciable difference in per-km CO2 emissions between diesel and petrol cars. Real-world CO2 emissions of diesel cars have not declined appreciably since 2001, while the CO2 emissions of petrol cars have been stagnant since 2012. When adding black carbon related CO2-equivalents, such as from diesel cars without particulate filters, diesel cars were discovered to have had much higher climate relevant emissions until the year 2001 when compared to petrol cars. From 2001 to 2015 CO2-equivalent emissions from new diesel cars and petrol cars were hardly distinguishable. Lifetime use phase CO2-equivalent emissions of all European passenger vehicles were modelled for 1995–2015 based on three scenarios: the historic case, another scenario freezing percentages of diesel cars at the low levels from the early 1990s (thus avoiding the observed “boom” in new diesel registrations), and an advanced mitigation scenario based on high proportions of petrol hybrid cars and cars burning gaseous fuels. The difference in CO2-equivalent emissions between the historical case and the scenario avoiding the diesel car boom is only 0.4%. The advanced mitigation scenario would have been able to achieve a 3.4% reduction in total CO2-equivalent emissions over the same time frame. The European diesel car boom appears to have been ineffective at reducing climate-warming emissions from the European transport sector.

This article presents experience curves and cost-benefit analyses for electric and plug-in hybrid cars sold in Germany. We find that between 2010 and 2016, the prices and price differentials relative to conventional cars declined at learning rates of 23 ± 2% and 32 ± 2% for electric cars and 6 ± 1% and 37 ± 2% for plug-in hybrids. If trends persist, price beak-even with conventional cars may be reached after another 7 ± 1 million electric cars and 5 ± 1 million plug-in hybrids are produced. The user costs of electric and plug-in hybrid cars relative to their conventional counterparts are declining annually by 14% and 26%. Also the costs for mitigating CO2 and air pollutant emissions through the deployment of electrified cars tend to decline. However, at current levels, NOX and particle emissions are still mitigated at lower costs by state-of-the-art after-treatment systems than through the electrification of powertrains. Overall, the observation of robust technological learning suggests policy makers should focus their support on non-cost market barriers for the electrification of road transport, addressing specifically the availability of recharging infrastructure.

Background: On the way to a more sustainable society, transport needs to be urgently optimized regarding energy consumption and pollution control. While in earlier decades, Europe followed automobile technology leaps initiated in the USA, it has decoupled itself for 20 years by focusing research capacity towards the diesel powertrain. The resulting technology shift has led to some 45 million extra diesel cars in Europe. Its outcome in terms of health and environmental effects will be investigated below. Results: Expected greenhouse gas savings initiated by the shift to diesel cars have been overestimated. Only about one tenth of overall energy efficiency improvements of passenger cars can be attributed to it. These minor savings are on the other hand overcompensated by a significant increase of supply chain CO2 emissions and extensive black carbon emissions of diesel cars without particulate filter. We conclude that the European diesel car boom did not cool down the atmosphere. Moreover, toxic NO x emissions of diesel cars have been underestimated up to 20-fold in officially announced data. The voluntary agreement signed in 1998 between the European Automobile industry and the European Commission envisaging to reduce CO2 emissions has been identified as elementary for the ensuing European diesel car boom. Four factors have been quantified in order to explain very different dieselization rates across Europe: impact of national car/supplier industry, ecological modernization, fuel tourism and corporatist political governance. By comparing the European diesel strategy to the Japanese petrol-hybrid avenue, it becomes clear that a different road would have both more effectively reduced CO2 emissions and pollutants. Conclusion: Europe's car fleets have been persistently transformed from being petrol-driven to diesel-driven over the last 20 years. This paper investigates on how this came to be and why Europe took a distinct route as compared to other parts of the world. It also attempts to evaluate the outcome of stated goals of this transformation which was primarily a robust reduction in GHG emissions. We conclude that global warming has been negatively affected, and air pollution has become alarming in many European locations. More progressive development scenarios could have prevented these outcomes.