Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (2)
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (2)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- nein (2)
Schlagworte
- life cycle assessment (2) (entfernen)
Institut
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).