1. Introduction
In recent years, the issue of global warming has been discussed more than ever on international platforms, with the passing of many actionable laws and incentives for the public. Decarbonizing the transport sector has been the priority of many Western countries. Due to many incentives and regulations, the world has witnessed a steady growth in both plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) as well as battery electric vehicles (BEVs). The world has witnessed a steady rise in the demand and supply of electric vehicles, and it is estimated that over 3 million units have been sold worldwide in one year, of which Europe had a 40% share while China had a 50% share. This number doubled the next year, reaching over 6 million units sold [1]. By 2021, Sweden had a total of 355,737 registered electric vehicles, of which 120,343 were BEVs [2].
The EU has been strategically reducing the carbon footprint of its transport sector since the beginning of this millennium and has been very successful so far. The average tailpipe emissions of new passenger cars were 130 g CO2/km in 2020, which reduced to 114.1 g CO2/km in 2021 and 108.1 g CO2/km in 2022 [3]. It has set the upper limit to an average of 93.6 g/km for 2025–2029 followed by 49.5 g/km for 2030–2034. These stricter laws and government-initiated incentivized plans for the public and manufactures have seen a drastic shift towards electric vehicles, in general, and BEVs, as summarized in Figure 1 below [4].
Figure 1 gives us the numbers for electric car registrations in the European Union for the years 2020–2024. The increase in new registrations for both BEVs and PHEVs is similar in 2021. However, in 2022, there is a dramatic increase in BEV registrations across the EU, jumping from 878,092 to 1,126,682, which is a 28.3% increase over the past year. For PHEVs, new registrations increased by only 1.21% in the year 2022 compared to the past year. This increase in BEV registrations could be attributed to better battery technologies being developed and the installation of public car charging stations across Europe.
Figure 2 elaborates on the concept of this paper. The paper begins with the current market trends related to the adoption of EVs followed by a detailed review of carbon emissions due to lithium-ion battery production, with an emphasis on both the mining emissions as well as the battery production process emissions. Thereafter, a case study is developed to compare the results of carbon emissions due to ICE cars and EVs over the course of 200,000 km. For EVs, a generation mix of conventional and non-conventional sources is considered along with two different battery production locations. The results are then compared, and conclusions are drawn.
2. Literature Review on Carbon Emissions Related to Conventional Cars and Electric Cars
Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) may have zero direct carbon emissions, but the source of their charging heavily determines their overall efficiency. A study was conducted to determine the emissions of petrol and diesel cars and compare them with BEVs that were charged with electricity produced through different sources. The sources of the charging electricity included three non-renewables (oil, natural gas and coal), four renewable resources (wind, solar, hydro and geothermal) and nuclear. The emissions during their 10-year lifetime with a total milage of 200,000 km were estimated and compared. Since this study covered their lifetime assessment, it included the emissions during vehicle production, fuel processing and extraction (for petrol and diesel cars) and the electricity production phase (for BEVs).
The technical specifications of the three different vehicle types considered for this study are presented in Table 1 [5]. The attributes included vehicle weight, energy consumption and emission standards, followed by ICE vehicles and EVs.
The study performed by Safarian [5] presented carbon emissions in tons for ICE vehicles and EVs charged by different sources of electricity generation. Moreover, in [6], the authors presented a lifecycle assessment (LCA) and lifecycle cost (LCC) analysis of EVs and conventional vehicles powered by fossil fuels, with the conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) are reduced with the adoption of EVs. However, the human toxicity level is increased, owing to the large use of chemicals, metals and energy to produce high-voltage batteries and powertrains. Furthermore, using renewable energy resources for battery cell production considerably reduces the environmental impacts of EVs [7]. The impacts of EVs can be further reduced by employing batteries as local energy storage to buffer fluctuating renewable electricity.
Other than charging, lithium extraction and manipulation for BEV batteries are another major source of harmful pollutants and hazardous gases released in the environment. A study performed by Michael et al. [8] estimated the mass of lithium-ion battery components and their impact on the global warming potential as a percentage. The specifications and chemical compositions of the battery under consideration are presented below in Table 2.
Table 2 provides us with technical specifications of a nickel manganese cobalt (NMC) 111 battery pack [8].
Figure 3 gives us the whole chemical composition of the complete battery pack. It should be noted that the active materials form a large part of the composition, with a 38.17% share of the total mass [9]. Carbon constitutes 20.17%, while wrought aluminum forms 17.26% of the whole battery pack. The remaining 24.4% of materials comprise different chemicals and metals such as steel, polypropylene, copper, binder and few other components. After assessing the battery composition, the study goes on to assess their environmental impact, which is summarized in Figure 4.
Figure 4 demonstrates that the materials used in the production of battery cells have the highest percentage contribution towards climate change as opposed to the other components of a lithium-ion battery. The main active materials used in cell production are metals such as copper and aluminum. Following battery cells, battery packaging is responsible for 22% of emissions in lithium batteries. The cooling systems and battery management system (BMS) account for 4.30% and 8.80% of emissions, respectively [8].
The carbon emissions resulting from the production of lithium batteries can be somewhat minimized by recycling the old batteries to obtain materials like Li, Ni and Co. In the EU, a new regulation states that every newly produced EV battery must contain at least 12% recycled Li, 15% Ni and 26% cobalt by 2036 [10]. This regulation will provide two benefits, the first one being the reduction in GHG emissions due to lithium cell production [11,12], and the second benefit will be the availability of raw materials like Li, Ni and Co from the recycled end-of-life EV batteries. This recycled material tends to have a 5 to 17 times higher concentration of raw materials compared to natural ore extraction [13].
A study by Abdelbaky et al. [14] determined the global warming impact of lithium-ion cell production considering the recycling of end-of-life EV batteries using hydrometallurgical and pyrometallurgical recycling routes. The two types of lithium cells considered for this study were NMC 111 and NMC811. It was discussed that the carbon footprint of lithium-ion batteries produced by recycling older batteries tends to show that emissions have been reduced by 17.8 to 21.5 kg CO2 eq. per kWh battery pack.
When NMC 111 cells were produced using 100% primary materials, the estimated carbon emissions were 93.2 kg CO2 eq./kWh. This value was reduced to 71.4 kg CO2 eq./kWh when using recycled material from hydrometallurgical recycling, while the emissions stood at 63.7 kg CO2 eq./kWh when pyrometallurgical recycling was employed.
The improved performance of pyrometallurgical recycling was due to its main recycled product, NMC hydroxide, which can directly interact with Li2CO3 to make cathode active materials, while the sulfate salts from the hydrometallurgical recycling need to go through co-precipitation to produce the same NMC hydroxide that would react with Li2CO3. When the production of NMC811 cells was considered using only the primary production routes, the estimated carbon emissions were 85.3 kg CO2 eq./kWh, compared to 67.7 kg CO2 eq./kWh when hydrometallurgical recycling was employed. This figure further reduced to 60 kg CO2 eq./kWh with feedstock materials using pyrometallurgical recycling.
A study by Lima et al. [15] compared the global warming and human toxicity effects of lithium-ion batteries with vanadium redox batteries. The results were estimated over a period of 20 years, with one charge/discharge cycle a day for 300 days each year, with a total provision of 1 MWh of electricity during this period. Their findings are tabulated below in Table 3.
Table 3 figuratively summarizes the comparison of lithium-ion batteries with vanadium redox batteries. It is important to recognize and measure the impact of these batteries and the source of said emissions so that improvements in the required areas can be made. For lithium-ion batteries, the global warming impact of the cathode (51% of total carbon emissions) was almost 6 times higher than its anode due to the use of a binder called polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). This chemical is responsible for the emission of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) and hydrofluorocarbon (HFC). Some studies have attributed PTFE to increased emissions in VRB batteries as well and have suggested substituting it [16].
Other materials used in the production of the cathode that are responsible for global warming are cobalt sulfate, nickel sulfate and manganese sulfate. On the other hand, anode production amounted to a total 8.8% share of net carbon emissions from lithium-ion batteries, and this was attributed to the use of copper. The remaining carbon emissions were due to metallic materials like aluminum, printed circuit boards and steel [16].
When it comes to vanadium redox batteries, the production of vanadium pentoxide is a major contributor towards global warming (58.7% of total carbon emissions). This element serves as an electrolyte in vanadium batteries. Following the electrolyte, the Nafion membrane is the second largest carbon contributor, amounting to 9.5% of total emissions, mainly due to the production of tetrafluoroethylene [17].
The anodes in the lithium-ion batteries have the highest impact on human toxicity, amounting to an enormous 73.8%, followed by the production of copper busbars for the trays [16,17]. The remaining impact is attributed to production of racks, BMS, cables and cathode. In vanadium redox batteries, the highest impact on human toxicity is due to the current collector and electrolyte production resulting in impact shares of 45.9% and 40.7%, respectively [18].
Apart from widely used lithium-ion batteries, in recent years, sodium-ion batteries (SIB) have found their place in the EV market. They are being utilized in EVs in place of lithium-ion batteries due to advancements in technology [19,20]. SIBs have some advantages over LIBs which are briefly discussed here. Mining for sodium is more cost effective as compared to lithium, because the Earth’s crust contains 2.27% sodium and it is the fifth most abundant element on Earth [21]. Trona, a prerequisite of sodium carbonate, costs around USD 135–165 compared to the USD 5000 cost to produce lithium carbonate. Apart from this, the electrode in lithium-ion batteries uses copper foils as the current collector, which costs around USD 210 per meter. SIBs use aluminum foils as current collectors, which are much cheaper at a rate of USD 70 per meter. These reduce the overall cost of SIBs [22]. Besides the cost factor, it is a common misconception that SIBs would never have the same energy density levels as LIBs. This is due to simply accounting the heavier atomic mass of sodium compared to lithium. It is worth noting that the energy density of rechargeable ion batteries is dependent on the capacity of each individual anode and cathode material along the output voltage of complete battery [23].
Table 4 compares the battery chemistries based on their physical and chemical parameters [24]. In this study, it is concluded that at 0 °C, SIBs have higher discharge capacity compared to LIBs. At 45 °C and 25 °C, their discharge capacities differ by 0.5–0.8% [24], but the capacity retention rate of SIBs is 15.81% lower than LIBs. Another study highlighted that with the help of greater SIB penetration in the market, especially for EVs, the climate impact decreased from 43 to 57% for 2020 to 2050. The contribution of carbon emissions from battery manufacturing processes reduced by 18–32% to 2–4%. This conclusion suggests that future investments and research in SIBs are not only promising for cost reduction but also for reducing carbon emissions [25]. However, for the purpose of this study, we have considered lithium-ion batteries, as they are still the most widely used battery chemistry in EVs.
2.1. Carbon Footprint of Battery Material
The facts and figures shared above portray a general picture of the GHG emissions and the carbon footprint (CF) resulting from manufacturing lithium-ion batteries. For further analysis, the source of raw materials and production of electricity should also be considered [26,27]. Therefore, these emissions are localized, and different solutions are required to reduce the harmful emissions and find more eco-friendly material sources. Several battery manufacturers have identified key emission components in their manufacturing processes and unveiled their decarbonizing plans [28]. In recent times, some lithium-ion battery manufacturers like Tesla and Northvolt have pledged to produce fossil-free electricity for their factories, as this heavily influences the carbon footprint of the batteries [29,30,31]. It is estimated that 30–50 kWh is required per kWh cell produced for NMC, LFP and NCA chemistries [32].
There are several materials used in the production of lithium-ion batteries whose CF is difficult to estimate with great accuracy such as CoSO4, LiOH, Li2CO3 and NiSO4. Of these materials, lithium is the most researched one, with recent studies covering LiOH and Li2CO3 conversion and production through spodumene and brine resources [33,34]. The estimated CF for Li2CO3 varies between 2.1 and 33 kg CO2-eq kg−1, whereas for LiOH it is between 5.5 and 19.2 kg CO2-eq kg−1.
For spodumene-based sources, the resultant GHG emissions tend to be on the higher end [34]. Other cathode materials include MnSO4, CoSO4 and NiSO4. The CF of NiSO4 is the lowest when produced from laterite and sulfide ores (1.8 kg CO2-eq kg−1) and highest when processed from nickel iron (22.4 kg CO2-eq kg−1) [35,36].
Between sulfide and laterite ores, the extraction of nickel from sulfide ores generally results in lower carbon emissions due to the low energy requirements during sulfide mining and processing. On the other hand, nickel laterites must be either completely smelted or processed hydrometallurgically, which requires more energy and complex processes [37].
Cobalt is dominantly mined in the Democratic Republic of Congo and is then converted to CoSO4 in China. This supply chain has been estimated to release 6.9–9.7 kg CO2-eq/kg of carbon footprint. However, when mining and processing in China is considered, the values are estimated to be in the range of 4–35.6 kg CO2-eq/kg [38]. This difference in figures is because DRC utilizes hydroelectric power for most of its mining processes, and thus results in a lower carbon footprint. Similarly, the carbon emissions for MnSO4 mining are in the range of 0.7–4.8 kg CO2-eq kg−1.
There are carbon emissions linked to the lithium-ion battery’s anode as well. For instance, graphite is a material whose emissions have often been miscalculated in previous years. However, in recent studies, they have been estimated to be around 9.6 kg CO2-eq kg−1 for natural graphite and around 20.6 kg CO2-eq kg−1 for synthetic graphite [39,40]. These values are heavily dependent on the electricity mix being utilized for the graphite mining and surface modification in the case of natural graphite and the graphitization stage for the synthetic graphite. The median values for different cell types of a given capacity are graphically represented below.
It can be seen from Figure 5 that LFP cells have the lowest median CF, and this can be attributed to the low material requirements for their cathode. Furthermore, their cathode materials, namely FeSO4 and H3PO4, come with significantly lower carbon emissions [41].
2.2. Carbon Footprint (CF) of Battery Manufacturing
The carbon footprint associated with the cell manufacturing process, neglecting the gate-to-gate contribution of raw materials, is also heavily dependent on the electricity mix being utilized in the developmental stages. In some European countries like Norway and Sweden, the median CF is 1.6 and 2.8 kg CO2-eq kWh−1, respectively. Whereas in other countries that rely more on fossil fuels for electricity, the median values are much higher. For instance, Germany and Poland have a median gate-to-gate CF of 21.9 and 39.6 kg CO2-eq kWh−1, respectively. It is expected that by 2035, Sichuan, a province in China, will be producing as many lithium-ion batteries as Germany and Poland combined, with a median CF of 12.0 kg CO2-eq kWh−1. This shows that most of the Gigafactories’ locations have been selected due to lower costs as opposed to lower CF.
This implies that if most of the world’s battery demands are met by factories with a higher CF, the decarbonization cannot be efficiently regulated unless and until the factories with lower CF increase their battery production capacity. The planned battery production capacities in GWh by 2035 for some locations have been shared below in Figure 6 [41]. For the USA, data for six states, namely Kentucky, Indiana, Nevada, Ohio, Colorado and New York, have been aggregated. Similarly, for China, data from six different cities have been combined, namely, Tianjin, Shanghai, Anhui, Hanan, Shandong and Jiangsu.
This brings us to the conclusion that there are three important factors to be considered when the decarbonization of lithium-ion batteries is to be discussed: the CF of the material supply chain, the CF of the battery manufacturing process and the annual battery production capacity of a Gigafactory.
2.3. Cradle-to-Gate Carbon Footprint of LIBs
The cradle-to-gate estimation includes the carbon footprints due to both material extraction as well as the manufacturing process. Depending on the source of the materials utilized and the location of battery manufacturing, the median LIB production carbon footprint can range between 48.9 and 118.4 kg CO2-eq kWh−1. In European countries, where LIBs are manufactured, the median carbon footprint is between 50.4 and 88.4 kg CO2-eq kWh−1. In North America, this figure varies between 48.9 and 96.0 kg CO2-eq kWh−1, and in some of the Chinese provinces, it varies between 57.5 and 118.4 kg CO2-eq kWh−1. These results correlate with the published literature that highlights the fact that, on average, the batteries manufactured in China have a higher carbon footprint as opposed to those manufactured in Europe or North America [18,31,42].
Figure 7 provides us with the overall carbon emissions from producing a battery, including the material extraction in various countries and cities around the world. The highest CF belongs to various Chinese provinces, starting with Tianjin, with 119 kg CO2-eq kWh−1, Anhui with CF 117 kg CO2-eq kWh−1 and Henan with a CF of 115 kg CO2-eq kWh−1. On the other end of the spectrum, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and France are some of the most environmentally friendly locations to build lithium-ion batteries with carbon footprints of 46, 48, 49 and 50 kg CO2-eq kWh−1, respectively.
Before formulating this case study, we conducted a thorough review of the existing literature that involves similar studies on estimating vehicular carbon emissions for internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles and electric vehicles (EVs). These papers and their limitations are succinctly discussed. For [5,43,44,45,46,47], the papers discuss carbon emissions based on the general specification of a particular ICE vehicle and EV and do not cater to the realistic vehicle mix on the road. This makes the calculations and estimations less reliable. Similarly, ref. [48] discusses the emissions trend from 2020 to 2022 resulting from BEVs, but it does not compare the ICE vehicle’s emissions with the former. Also, the source of electricity generation for charging is not mentioned explicitly. In some of the reviewed papers, the effect of carbon emissions is only discussed considering either 2-wheelers or 3-wheelers, which does not represent the best on-road vehicular mix [49,50]. Mining for raw materials and the production of lithium-ion batteries contribute significant amounts of carbon emissions to the environment. Therefore, integrating these values with the operational emissions of EVs is crucial to determine the overall impact of these vehicles. In papers which estimate the impact of lithium mining and battery production, key elements missing are considerations of location variation for mining and battery production, linking these figures with the battery specifications of some popular and common on-road 4-wheeler vehicles (which are the most used type of EVs) [51,52,53,54,55,56]. In some papers, only BEVs and PHEVs are considered for comparison and ICE vehicles are excluded [57].
The novelty of this paper is multifaceted. We intend to address the missing elements and shortcomings of the existing literature and combine different aspects to conduct a thorough study to evaluate the carbon emissions of EVs vs. ICE vehicles. To achieve this goal, we have included 10 recent 4-wheeled vehicle models of both ICE vehicles and EVs from the most commonly available and used brands. We used their carbon emissions data sets from vehicle databases and company specifications, including the carbon emissions resulting from the mining of raw materials and the battery production of lithium-ion batteries. These figures are included from a variety of locations in Europe, China and USA. Furthermore, the emissions from EVs are also calculated from an operational point of view. A generation mix of energy sources is considered for EV charging, including conventional and non-conventional energy resources.
3. Methodology and Formulation of the Case Study
This study employs a lifecycle assessment (LCA) approach to compare the carbon emissions of battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles over a driving range of 200,000 km. The LCA includes emissions from vehicle production, battery manufacturing and electricity generation for charging. For establishing a realistic case study, we have considered a few assumptions, for instance, the batteries need to be replaced after the warranty mileage is over. The electric vehicles that have a warranty mileage of more than 200,000 km would not need battery replacement, such as Tesla Model S and Mercedes-Benz EQS. When it comes to charging efficiency, there are three different levels of charging with each having their own efficiency range. The most efficient chargers are level 3 chargers and the least efficient are level 1 chargers. For the sake of a fair comparison in this study, we are assuming the charging efficiency to be 85%. Further details on the rationale of the above-mentioned assumptions are explained and referenced from the existing studies in subsequent sections of this paper. We develop a protocol to calculate emissions from battery manufacturing based on the location of production. This protocol considers the energy mix of the production site, the efficiency of manufacturing processes and supply chain logistics. For instance, emissions data are collected from battery production facilities in Norway and Tianjin, highlighting the differences in energy sources and manufacturing efficiencies. The protocol involves analyzing data on energy consumption, emissions factors for different energy sources and transportation emissions. This method accounts for the energy mix of the electricity grid in different regions, including renewable and non-renewable sources. The method involves using regional electricity grid data from the Euro stats. Emissions factors for different energy sources (e.g., coal, natural gas, solar, wind) are applied to calculate the overall emissions from electricity generation. This study is designed to include two cars each from five different brands and their respective carbon emissions in g/km are recorded. For a fair comparison, all models considered here are models from 2020 and onwards [58,59]. From an emissions point of view, the cars are selected with emissions ranging from 99 g/km to 186 g/km. This approach can give us a better and more realistic comparison with electric vehicles.
Table 5 enlists two models each from five different car makers with a production year of 2020 and onwards. This ensures that the cars included in the study are in alignment with the latest regulations and represent the majority of the road fleet.
Figure 8 extrapolates the average annual emissions based on an estimate of 20,000 km milage a year for the selected cars. The lowest emissions are from Toyota Aygo 1.0 which has 1980 kg CO2-eq, and the highest emissions are 3720 kg CO2-eq from the Toyota Civic Type R. Now, we list the ten electric vehicles by adopting selection criteria like fuel car selection. The EVs are models from 2020 and onwards and the nominal battery capacity varies to include both high-end and low-end vehicles.
Table 6 lists ten EVs from five different brands, including both high-end and low-end vehicles for fair representation [60]. In the sixth column from left side of the table, “battery replacement per 200,000 km” shows the number of times the batteries of a vehicle would need to be replaced to cover that distance. It is assumed that the batteries need to be replaced after the warranty mileage is over. The electric vehicles that have a warranty mileage of more than 200,000 km would not need battery replacement, such as Tesla Model S and Mercedes-Benz EQS.
Using the data of cradle-to-gate LIB production carbon emissions from Figure 7, we are going to estimate the carbon emissions due to the battery production for the listed cars in Table 7. This will give us the carbon emissions for completing 200,000 km by the EVs included in this study. For simplicity, two production places are selected, namely Norway (46 kg CO2-eq kWh−1) and Tianjin (119 kg CO2-eq kWh−1). This will provide us with the highest and lowest carbon footprint data. So, the table below tabulates the data related to battery production emissions for both the original and replacement batteries for each vehicle based on the production locations Norway and Tianjin.
After estimating the carbon emissions due to battery production, it is time to estimate the running efficiency of the EVs for which we require the average mileage per full charge, energy consumed per charge, charging efficiency and carbon emissions during charging. According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the peer-reviewed median carbon emissions in g CO2 eq./kWh are shown in a graph below [61].
Figure 9 shows that the highest carbon emissions are for the electricity being produced using coal and the second highest are for natural gas. By simply switching from coal to solar energy, a reduction of 94.14% is observed in the median carbon emissions value per kWh. The electricity production source with the lowest emissions is nuclear energy, with only 12 g CO2 eq./kWh.
Charging EVs bring about their own challenges and concerns and works have been undertaken to various ends, from improving the grid load management to shortening the charging queues and overall improving the efficiency [62,63,64]. Other researchers have focused on generation efficiency and load management [65,66].
When it comes to charging efficiency, there are three different levels of charging, with each having their own efficiency range. The most efficient chargers are level 3 chargers and the least efficient are level 1 chargers. Overall, the charger efficiency can vary between 75 and 94% [67,68,69,70,71]. For the sake of a fair comparison, we are assuming the charging efficiency to be 85% for this study.
Table 8 presents the total charging energy required to complete 200,000 km. Data for “Battery Nominal capacity” and “Full charge mild weather range” are taken from the EV Database [39]. Energy per charge is calculated using an 85% charging efficiency while the total number of charges for covering 200,000 km are obtained by dividing the distance by the range for each vehicle. Ultimately, we calculate the total energy required, including the charging losses, to complete the 200,000 km.
To conduct an analysis of the seasonal variation in the electricity production from a mix of energy sources, including conventional and non-conventional, Figure 10 presents the energy production data for the year 2023 from the EU with the share of each source.
Considering the weighted contribution of each energy source and their respective emission levels, we calculate the amount of annual emissions for charging each different type of EVs over an annual milage course of 20,000 km, as presented in Figure 11 [72,73,74,75].
Figure 11 shows that the dominance of renewable energy resources in the power grid leads to the actual reduction in emissions from the transport sector. Simultaneously, considering the production and the operational carbon emissions from ICE vehicles and the EVs brings us to the following question: are ICE cars more environmentally friendly than EVs? The answer is yes and no. It all depends on the charging source. In this comparison, we have compared the ICE emissions with those of natural-gas-charged EVs to show the effect of increased emissions when renewable energy is not being used for charging EVs. This leads us to our second conclusion, that is, the global emissions of the transport sector cannot be reduced by only introducing and incentivizing EVs. Countries taking these initiatives must also revamp their energy sector and switch towards renewable energy sources.
Moreover, Table 9 showcases EVs’ carbon footprints considering the power generation mix employed by different countries [76,77,78] and assuming an average EV efficiency of 0.18 kWh/km. Furthermore, the EV charging emissions with the change in season (summer and winter) are illustrated in Table 10 [79,80] and a comparison of the lifecycle emissions of selected EVs vs. ICE vehicles is presented in Table 11 [78,81,82].
Table 12 combines the CF of both battery production in Norway and charging through five different energy sources. There are several things to be noted. The first observation is that charging with a coal-powered energy source leads to the biggest carbon footprint of the lot. For example, ID.3 Pure has total combined emissions of 38,775 kg CO2 eq. when coal is considered. It is reduced by 34.99% by switching to natural gas for charging. The emissions are drastically reduced when renewable sources like solar, hydropower and nuclear are considered. A reduction of 81.86% is noted by switching from coal to solar energy. Emissions are further reduced by 84.40% and 85.67% when hydropower and nuclear are considered, respectively, instead of coal.
Table 13 considers batteries being produced in the Chinese province of Tianjin instead of Norway. A significant jump in the carbon emissions is expected due to the battery production emissions in Tianjin (119 kg CO2-eq kWh−1) being much higher than Norway (46 kg CO2-eq kWh−1). To put things into perspective, for Kia e-Soul, the carbon emissions are increased by 17.8%, which equates to an increase of 6132 kg CO2 eq. When more efficient EVs like Ford Mustang Mach-E are considered, the increase in carbon emissions is even greater, since the majority of these emissions are the result of a higher CF during battery production.
For Mustang Mach-E, the carbon emissions increase by 30.55% when coal-produced electricity is used to charge the EV. The difference in emissions increases when more efficient charging sources are brought into the equation. When nuclear-produced energy is considered, Mustang Mach-E’s emissions increase by 149.53% due to the battery being produced in Tianjin with a higher CF. This equates to an additional 14,411 kg CO2 equivalent.
The analysis conducted above helps us to arrive at our first conclusion, which is that the location of battery-producing factories should be a part of global initiatives calling for the reduction of carbon footprint. Initiatives should ensure that future battery-producing factories are set up in countries and locations which rely heavily on renewable energy sources. Those factories which have already been set up at carbon-intensive locations should be encouraged to adopt more and more renewable energy sources.
Based on the literature review performed in the previous section, countries like Norway, Switzerland and Sweden are the most favorable countries, since their production emissions are below 50 kg CO2-eq kWh−1. The next favorable batch of production locations could be Italy, the United Kingdom, Spain, France, Belgium, Slovakia and New York, as they have emissions below 70 kg CO2-eq kWh−1.
Sensitivity Analysis
To enhance the robustness of our findings, a sensitivity analysis is conducted to evaluate the impact of key variables on the comparative carbon emissions of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles and electric vehicles (EVs). The analysis focuses on two critical factors: battery production location and energy source utilized to charge EVs.
The carbon footprint of battery manufacturing is heavily dependent on the location where batteries are being produced. This factor is influenced due to emissions related to the mining and refining of raw materials as well as the emissions related to cell assembling. For instance, regions which are reliant on coal-heavy grids produce batteries with a much higher carbon footprint compared to those with renewable-dominated grids. By considering different battery production locations in different countries, the analysis assesses the implications for the life-cycle emissions of EVs. For example, when a Mercedes-Benz EQS 580 4MATIC is considered, 5750 kg CO2-eq is emitted to produce a single battery in Norway (46 kg CO2-eq kWh−1), while if the same battery is made in a factory located in Tianjin (119 kg CO2-eq kWh−1), the carbon emissions would be 14,875 kg CO2-eq. This corresponds to an increase of 258.7% and goes on to show the importance of this factor in the reduction of carbon emissions associated with EVs.
The second parameter of this sensitivity analysis is the variation in the source of electricity used to charge EVs. Different grid mixes are considered, ranging from a grid predominantly powered with fossil fuels to a grid relying on renewable sources. This analysis lays an emphasis on adopting renewable resources for power generation to a wider extent in order to reduce the overall carbon emissions due to the transport sector in general and EV charging in particular. For example, a coal-powered grid charging a Volkswagen ID.3 Pure would emit 38,775.33 kg CO2-eq. However, these emissions substantially drop to 7033.58 kg CO2-eq. when solar-powered electricity is utilized to charge the same EV. Further reduction is observed when eco-friendlier alternatives such hydropower and nuclear energy are considered, with emissions of 6046.79 kg CO2-eq. and 5553.40 kg CO2-eq., respectively.
To sum up the analysis, the results highlight the importance of local energy policies and supply chain decisions in reducing the net carbon emissions associated with EVs. They also suggest that under certain conditions, EVs may have a narrower emissions advantage over conventional ICE cars.
Our findings are validated with the help of other relevant studies in the existing literature. These studies address the importance of decarbonizing the electric grid and choosing an optimal battery production location due to carbon emissions associated with the production processes. For instance, in terms of using renewable energy sources in power grids to charge EVs, ref. [5] has observed a reduction of 61–78% in carbon emissions. Likewise, in relation to choosing an optimal location for battery production, ref. [41] has observed an increase in carbon emissions of over 80% when the location is changed from Scandinavian countries like Norway and Sweden to China. This is because extracting and refining raw materials as well as battery cell assembling in China is more carbon intensive compared to the other locations considered in this study.
4. Results and Recommendations
This paper focuses on a comparative lifecycle assessment of carbon emissions for EVs and ICE cars. The latest trends in the transport sector are reviewed in relation to the adoption of EVs around the world. A brief literature review focuses on identifying carbon emissions from EVs in the form of battery production given the adopted mining strategy, routes and the battery production location. These reviewed data are then utilized in the formulation of a case study.
A case study has been developed to compare the carbon emissions of ICE vehicles and EVs over a course of 200,000 km. Ten ICE cars are selected for this study, with carbon emissions varying from 93 to 186 g/km to mimic a larger mix of on-road cars. Similarly, ten EVs are considered, with a varying energy efficiency and full-charge traveling distance. Ultimately, the carbon footprint of EVs is calculated based on five different sources of electricity generation for recharging and the location of the production of batteries. By comparing the emissions data of ICE vehicles vs. EVs, two important recommendations are drawn. To significantly reduce global carbon emissions, it is crucial to establish battery production facilities in regions with low carbon footprints, such as Norway, Switzerland and Sweden. These locations predominantly use renewable energy sources, which drastically lower the carbon emissions associated with battery manufacturing. For example, producing a single battery in Norway results in 4600 kg CO2-eq emissions, compared to 11,900 kg CO2-eq in Tianjin, representing a 258.7% increase. The strategic placement of battery manufacturing sites can thus play a pivotal role in reducing emissions.
The significant increase in emissions when shifting battery production from Norway to Tianjin is attributed to several factors, for instance, Norway predominantly uses renewable energy sources such as hydropower, which have low carbon emissions. In contrast, Tianjin relies more on fossil fuels like coal and natural gas, leading to higher emissions during the manufacturing process. The efficiency of manufacturing processes can vary significantly between locations. Facilities in Norway employ more advanced and energy-efficient technologies, while those in Tianjin use older, less efficient methods. The logistics involved in transporting raw materials and finished products also impact emissions. Longer supply chains and the use of fossil-fuel-powered transportation methods contribute to higher emissions.
Future grid decarbonization efforts are expected to significantly reduce the carbon footprint of EVs. As countries transition to renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and hydropower, the emissions associated with charging EVs will decrease. For example, the International Energy Agency’s Net Zero by 2050 roadmap aims for a total transformation of energy systems, reducing reliance on fossil fuels and increasing the share of renewables. As the grid becomes cleaner, EVs will have a lower overall carbon footprint, making them more advantageous compared to ICE cars.
To maximize the environmental benefits of electric vehicles (EVs), countries should transition their energy sectors to renewable sources such as solar, wind and hydropower. Charging EVs with renewable energy sources drastically reduces their overall emissions. For instance, charging a Volkswagen ID.3 Pure with a fossil-fuel-dominated grid results in 38,775 kg CO2-eq emissions, whereas the same car when charged using a renewable-dominated power system has its emissions reduced to 7033 kg CO2-eq, an 81.86% reduction. Further reductions in carbon emissions are expected with the increased penetration of renewable energy sources in the power grid, underscoring the critical importance of renewable energy adoption.
The successful policies and incentives that have promoted cleaner battery production and the development of charging infrastructure include The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program, part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which allocates USD 7.5 billion for a nationwide EV charging network. This initiative aims to reduce range anxiety and promote EV adoption by ensuring the widespread availability of charging stations. The EU’s Battery Passport, a component of the Green Deal, mandates detailed lifecycle data be available for all EV batteries sold in the EU by 2027. This policy ensures compliance with environmental standards and promotes sustainable battery production. China’s New Energy Vehicle (NEV) subsidies, which were in place from 2010 to 2022, significantly boosted EV adoption and investment in EV battery technology. These subsidies helped China become a global leader in EV adoption and battery production.
5. Conclusions
The results of this study align with previous research that emphasizes the importance of the energy mix used for charging electric vehicles (EVs) and the location of battery production, and have shown that the carbon footprints of EVs are significantly influenced by the source of electricity and the emissions associated with battery manufacturing. However, in this study, we have considered recent 4-wheeled vehicle models of both ICE cars and EVs from well-known brands with a realistic vehicle mix on the road. Moreover, carbon emissions from the mining of raw materials and the production of lithium-ion and sodium-ion batteries are considered. Our findings confirm that charging EVs with renewable energy sources drastically reduces their overall emissions, while charging with fossil fuels can result in higher emissions compared to the least emissive internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. Furthermore, sodium-ion batteries (SIBs) are more cost-effective compared to lithium-ion batteries, owing to the abundant availability of sodium. The implications of our findings are substantial for policymakers and stakeholders in the transportation sector. This study highlights the need for strategic decisions regarding the location of battery production facilities and the importance of transitioning to renewable energy sources for EV charging. Policymakers should focus on promoting renewable energy adoption and supporting the development of cleaner battery manufacturing processes. Additionally, the results suggest that incentives for renewable energy infrastructure and cleaner production technologies could play a crucial role in reducing the carbon footprint of EVs. This study finds that shifting battery production from Norway to Tianjin results in a 258.7% increase in emissions. This is primarily due to the differences in energy sources, manufacturing processes and supply chain logistics. Norway’s reliance on renewable energy sources, such as hydropower, contrasts sharply with Tianjin’s dependence on fossil fuels, leading to higher emissions during the manufacturing process. The results indicate that charging BEVs with fossil-fuel-based electricity can result in higher emissions compared to the least emissive ICE vehicles. However, using renewable energy sources for charging drastically reduces emissions. This study has a lot of potential for expanding in the future by incorporating one or more of these differentials in the study, developing more specialized and specific sub studies that will explore specific energy mixes, considering different battery types, including the repairing and recycling of lithium-ion batteries and incorporating the carbon emissions associated with the production of EVs and ICE cars. Furthermore, the variation in carbon emissions over the lifetime of ICE cars could also be integrated into the study to provide more refined insight of the numerical evaluation of this study. While this study provides valuable insights, it is important to acknowledge its limitations. The analysis is based on specific assumptions regarding the driving range, battery replacement and energy consumption. Variations in these factors could influence the results. Furthermore, the study does not account for regional differences in driving conditions, such as climate, terrain and driving cycles, which can impact vehicle emissions. Future research should focus on several key areas to build on the findings of this study, such as investigating advancements in battery technologies that could reduce emissions during production and improve overall efficiency; exploring the potential of alternative energy sources, such as hydrogen fuel cells and biofuels, for reducing emissions in the transportation sector; and conducting regional analyses that consider local driving conditions, energy mixes and production practices to provide more tailored recommendations.
Conceptualization, F.H.M., W.A., G.A.H. and Z.M.H.; methodology, F.H.M., Z.M.H., F.A. and M.L.; software, F.H.M., W.A., G.A.H. and M.L.; validation, Z.M.H., F.A. and M.L.; formal analysis, G.A.H., Z.M.H., F.A. and M.L.; investigation, W.A., G.A.H., F.A. and M.L.; resources, F.H.M., W.A., Z.M.H. and M.L.; data curation, G.A.H., F.A. and M.L.; writing—original draft preparation, F.H.M., W.A., G.A.H. and Z.M.H.; writing—review and editing, W.A., F.A. and M.L.; visualization, G.A.H., F.A. and M.L.; supervision, F.A. and M.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The data supporting the findings of this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Figure 1 Number of new electric car registrations from 2020 to 2024 in the EU.
Figure 2 Flow diagram explaining the idea of this research paper and summarizing the major steps involved.
Figure 3 Bill-of-materials for battery pack NMC 111.
Figure 4 Assessing environmental impact of various lithium-ion battery materials.
Figure 5 Median carbon footprint of various lithium-ion cell types.
Figure 6 Planned lithium-ion battery production capacity by 2035 in some locations across Europe, USA and China.
Figure 7 Cradle-to-gate carbon footprint of lithium cell production across different locations around the world from Europe, North America and China. These figures include carbon emissions due to both the material extraction as well as the production processes. Emissions are measured in kg CO2-eq kWh−1.
Figure 8 Annual average operational CO2 (kg) emissions of ICE vehicles considering 20,000 km annual milage.
Figure 9 Carbon emissions per kWh of electricity for different production sources.
Figure 10 Energy production share in European Union (aggregated for 27 member EU states) for 2023.
Figure 11 Emissions from EV charging over one year (20,000 km annual milage)—EU 2023.
Technical specifications of vehicles in the study.
| Parameters | Diesel Car | Petrol Car | Battery Electric Vehicle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vehicle Weight | 1314 kg | 1234 kg | 1200 |
| Vehicle Energy Consumption | 0.78 kWh/km | 0.83 kWh/km | 0.199 kWh/km |
| Battery Weight | - | - | 296 kg |
| Battery Capacity | - | - | 40 kWh |
| Emission Standard | EURO 6 | EURO 6 | - |
Specifications of lithium-ion battery cells for the study (Reprinted from Ref. [
| Characteristics | NMC 111 |
|---|---|
| Cell Nominal Voltage (V) | 3.7 |
| Nominal Capacity (Ah) | 43 |
| Battery Cell Efficiency (%) | 95 |
| Cell Energy Density (Wh/kg) | 264.2 |
| Battery Pack Energy (kWh) | 54.6 |
Comparing the environmental impact of lithium-ion batteries with vanadium redox batteries.
| Impact Type | Lithium-Ion Batteries | Vanadium Redox Batteries |
|---|---|---|
| Global Warming (kg CO2 eq.) | 56.3 | 57.0 |
| Fine Particulate Matter Formation (kg PM2.5 eq.) | 0.3 | 0.2 |
| Human Toxicity (kg 1,4-DCB) | 162.4 | 120.9 |
| Terrestrial Acidification (kg SO2 eq.) | 1.0 | 0.6 |
| Fossil Resource Scarcity (kg oil eq.) | 13.1 | 15.1 |
| Mineral Resource Scarcity (kg Cu eq.) | 5.0 | 4.8 |
Comparative analysis of SIBs and LIBs based on battery specifications.
| Parameters | SIB | LIB |
|---|---|---|
| Cathode and anode materials | Na(Ni0.4Fe0.2Mn0.4)O2/HC | LiFePO4/C |
| Nominal capacity, mAh | 1300 | 1500 |
| Nominal voltage, V | 3.1 | 3.2 |
| Maximum charging current, A | 1.3 | 1.5 |
| Maximum discharge current, A | 3.9 | 4.5 |
| Operating temperature range °C | Charging: −10–45 | Charging: 0–45 |
| Cell weight, g | 30 g | 40 g |
Carbon emissions of various petrol and diesel engine cars.
| Serial No. | Brand | Car Model | Carbon Emission (g/km) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Volkswagen | Golf 2.0 TDI Life 5dr | 99 |
| 2 | Volkswagen | Arteon Shooting Brake | 136 |
| 3 | Toyota | Aygo 1.0 VVT | 93 |
| 4 | Toyota | Yaris 1.5 VVT | 116 |
| 5 | BMW | 2 Series Gran Coupe | 114 |
| 6 | BMW | 2 Series M235i xDrive | 153 |
| 7 | Honda | Civic 1.5 VTEC Turbo Sport | 137 |
| 8 | Honda | Civic Type R 2.0 VTEC | 186 |
| 9 | Mercedes-Benz | CLA 180 AMG | 124 |
| 10 | Mercedes-Benz | B180 AMG | 129 |
Battery capacity and warranty data for different EVs.
| Serial No. | Make | Model | Battery Nominal Capacity (kWh) | Warranty Mileage (km) | Battery Replacement per 200,000 km |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Volkswagen | Volkswagen ID.3 Pure | 55.0 | 160,000 | Yes |
| 2 | Volkswagen | Volkswagen ID.7 Tourer Pro | 82.0 | 160,000 | Yes |
| 3 | Tesla | Tesla Model Y | 60.0 | 160,000 | Yes |
| 4 | Tesla | Tesla Model S Dual Motor | 100.0 | 240,000 | No |
| 5 | Kia | Kia e-Soul | 42.0 | 150,000 | Yes |
| 6 | Kia | Kia EV9 99.8 kWh AWD | 99.8 | 150,000 | Yes |
| 7 | Mercedes-Benz | Mercedes-Benz EQT 200 Standard | 48.0 | 160,000 | Yes |
| 8 | Mercedes-Benz | Mercedes-Benz EQS 580 4MATIC | 125.0 | 250,000 | No |
| 9 | Ford | Ford Explorer Standard Range RWD | 55.0 | 160,000 | Yes |
| 10 | Ford | Ford Mustang Mach-E ER AWD | 98.7 | 160,000 | Yes |
Total emissions due to battery production in Norway and Tianjin measured in kg CO2-eq.
| Model | Battery Nominal Capacity (kWh) | Total Batteries Required | Battery Production | Battery Production Emissions (Tianjin) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Volkswagen ID.3 Pure | 55.0 | 2 | 5060 | 13,090 |
| Volkswagen ID.7 Tourer Pro | 82.0 | 2 | 7544 | 19,516 |
| Tesla Model Y | 60.0 | 2 | 5520 | 14,280 |
| Tesla Model S Dual Motor | 100.0 | 1 | 4600 | 11,900 |
| Kia e-Soul | 42.0 | 2 | 3864 | 9996 |
| Kia EV9 99.8 kWh AWD | 99.8 | 2 | 9182 | 23,752 |
| Mercedes-Benz EQT 200 Standard | 48.0 | 2 | 4416 | 11,424 |
| Mercedes-Benz EQS 580 4MATIC | 125.0 | 1 | 5750 | 14,875 |
| Ford Explorer Standard Range RWD | 55.0 | 2 | 5060 | 13,090 |
| Ford Mustang Mach-E ER AWD | 98.7 | 2 | 9080 | 23,491 |
Estimating the total energy used for charging each vehicle to complete 200,000 km.
| Model | Battery Nominal Capacity (kWh) | Energy per Charge | Full Charge Mild Weather Range | Total Number of Charging Cycles for 200,000 km | Total Energy Consumed for covering 200,000 km (kWh) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Volkswagen ID.3 Pure | 55.0 | 64.75 | 315 | 635 | 41,116.25 |
| Volkswagen ID.7 Tourer Pro | 82.0 | 96.47 | 530 | 377 | 36,369.19 |
| Tesla Model Y | 60.0 | 70.58 | 405 | 494 | 34,866.52 |
| Tesla Model S Dual Motor | 100.0 | 117.64 | 665 | 301 | 35,400.61 |
| Kia e-Soul | 42.0 | 49.41 | 265 | 755 | 37,304.55 |
| Kia EV9 99.8 kWh AWD | 99.8 | 117.41 | 490 | 409 | 48,020.69 |
| Mercedes-Benz EQT 200 Standard | 48.0 | 56.47 | 255 | 785 | 44,328.95 |
| Mercedes-Benz EQS 580 4MATIC | 125.0 | 147 | 595 | 337 | 49,539.00 |
| Ford Explorer Standard Range RWD | 55.0 | 64.7 | 320 | 625 | 40,437.50 |
| Ford Mustang Mach-E ER AWD | 98.7 | 116.1 | 500 | 400 | 46,440.00 |
EV carbon footprint (well-to-wheel emissions).
| Country | Grid CO2 Intensity | EV Emissions | Key Energy Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Norway | 15.0 | 3–5 | Hydro (92%), Wind (7%), Other Sources (1%) |
| France | 52.0 | 10–12 | Nuclear (70%), Renewables (21%), Natural Gas (9%) |
| Germany | 350.0 | 70–85 | Coal (28%), Natural Gas (15%), Wind (27%), Nuclear (30%) |
| United States | 385.0 | 75–95 | Natural Gas (45%), Coal (25%), Renewables (30%) |
| China | 550.0 | 110–130 | Coal (61%), Renewables (29%), Nuclear (10%) |
| India | 700.0 | 140–160 | Coal (74%), Renewables (22%), Other Sources (4%) |
Seasonal variation in EV charging emissions.
| Country | Grid CO2 Intensity | EV Emissions (g CO2/km) | Key Seasonal Energy Drivers | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Summer | Winter | Summer | Winter | ||
| Norway | 10 | 20 | 1.8–3.6 | 3.6–7.2 | Hydro stable; minor winter fossil backup |
| France | 40 | 60 | 7.2–12.6 | 10.8–18.0 | Nuclear base; winter heating raises gas |
| Germany | 300 | 450 | 54–90 | 81–135 | Winter coal/gas use spikes |
| United States | 350 (avg.) | 450 (avg.) | 63–81 | 81–108 | Regional splits, e.g., California (summer: 200, winter: 300) vs. Midwest (coal-heavy) |
| China | 500 | 650 | 90–117 | 117–153 | Winter coal heating spikes |
| India | 650 | 800 | 117–144 | 144–180 | Coal use peaks in winter for heating |
Lifecycle emissions of EVs.
| Vehicle Type | Manufacturing Emissions (tCO2) | Operational Emissions (tCO2/200,000 km) | Total Lifecycle Emissions (tCO2) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tesla Model 3 (USA) | 10.5 | 12.6 (US grid) | 23.1 |
| Nissan Leaf (EU) | 9.8 | 6.3 (EU avg.) | 16.1 |
| BMW i3 (Germany) | 11.2 | 21.0 (German grid) | 32.2 |
| Toyota Corolla (ICE) | 6.7 | 34.5 (gasoline) | 41.2 |
Total carbon footprint due to charging EVs and considering battery manufacturing in Norway.
| Model | Carbon Emissions Due to Charging and Battery Manufacturing Combined | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coal + Norway | Natural Gas + | Solar + Norway | Hydropower + | Nuclear + | |
| Volkswagen ID.3 Pure | 38,775.33 | 25,206.96 | 7033.58 | 6046.79 | 5553.40 |
| Volkswagen ID.7 Tourer Pro | 37,366.74 | 25,364.90 | 9289.72 | 8416.86 | 7980.43 |
| Tesla Model Y | 34,110.55 | 22,604.59 | 7193.59 | 6356.80 | 5938.40 |
| Tesla Model S Dual Motor | 33,628.50 | 21,946.30 | 6299.23 | 5449.61 | 5024.81 |
| Kia e-Soul | 34,453.73 | 22,143.23 | 5654.62 | 4759.31 | 4311.65 |
| Kia EV9 99.8 kWh AWD | 48,558.97 | 32,712.14 | 11,486.99 | 10,334.50 | 9758.25 |
| Mercedes-Benz EQT 200 Standard | 40,765.74 | 26,137.19 | 6543.79 | 5479.89 | 4947.95 |
| Mercedes-Benz EQS 580 4MATIC | 46,371.98 | 30,024.11 | 8127.87 | 6938.94 | 6344.47 |
| Ford Explorer Standard Range RWD | 38,218.75 | 24,874.38 | 7001.00 | 6030.50 | 5545.25 |
| Ford Mustang Mach-E ER AWD | 47,160.80 | 31,835.60 | 11,309.12 | 10,194.56 | 9637.28 |
Calculating the total carbon footprint due to charging EVs and considering battery manufacturing in Tianjin.
| Model | Carbon Emissions Due to Charging and Battery Manufacturing Combined | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coal + Tianjin | Natural Gas + | Solar + Tianjin | Hydropower + | Nuclear + | |
| Volkswagen ID.3 Pure | 46,805.33 | 33,236.96 | 15,063.58 | 14,076.79 | 13,583.40 |
| Volkswagen ID.7 Tourer Pro | 49,338.74 | 37,336.90 | 21,261.72 | 20,388.86 | 19,952.43 |
| Tesla Model Y | 42,870.55 | 31,364.59 | 15,953.59 | 15,116.80 | 14,698.40 |
| Tesla Model S Dual Motor | 40,928.50 | 29,246.30 | 13,599.23 | 12,749.61 | 12,324.81 |
| Kia e-Soul | 40,585.73 | 28,275.23 | 11,786.62 | 10,891.31 | 10,443.65 |
| Kia EV9 99.8 kWh AWD | 63,128.97 | 47,282.14 | 26,056.99 | 24,904.50 | 24,328.25 |
| Mercedes-Benz EQT 200 Standard | 47,773.74 | 33,145.19 | 13,551.79 | 12,487.89 | 11,955.95 |
| Mercedes-Benz EQS 580 4MATIC | 55,496.98 | 39,149.11 | 17,252.87 | 16,063.94 | 15,469.47 |
| Ford Explorer Standard Range RWD | 46,248.75 | 32,904.38 | 15,031.00 | 14,060.50 | 13,575.25 |
| Ford Mustang Mach-E ER AWD | 61,571.80 | 46,256.60 | 25,720.12 | 24,605.56 | 24,048.28 |
1. Richter, F. Global Electric Car Sales Doubled in 2021, 15 February 2022. Available online: https://www.statista.com/chart/26845/global-electric-car-sales/ (accessed on 8 May 2025).
2. IEA. Global EV Outlook 2020, Entering the Decade of Electric Drive?. 2020; Available online: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/af46e012-18c2-44d6-becd-bad21fa844fd/Global_EV_Outlook_2020.pdf (accessed on 3 April 2024).
3. EEA. Average CO2 Emissions from New Passenger Cars and Future Targets, European Environment Agency, 9 January 2024. Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/average-co2-emissions-from-new-1#tab-chart_1 (accessed on 4 April 2024).
4. EEA. New Registrations of Electric Cars in EU-27, European Environment Agency. 3 July 2023; Available online: https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/indicators/new-registrations-of-electric-vehicles/new-registration-of-electric-cars-eu-27 (accessed on 4 April 2024).
5. Safarian, S. Environmental and energy impacts of battery electric and conventional vehicles: A study in Sweden under recycling scenarios. Fuel Commun.; 2022; 14, 100083. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfueco.2022.100083]
6. Verma, S.; Dwivedi, G.; Verma, P. Life cycle assessment of electric vehicles in comparison to combustion engine vehicles: A review. Mater. Today Proc.; 2022; 49, pp. 217-222. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.01.666]
7. Helmers, E.; Dietz, J.; Weiss, M. Sensitivity Analysis in the Life-Cycle Assessment of Electric vs. Combustion Engine Cars under Approximate Real-World Conditions. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 1241. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12031241]
8. Koroma, M.S.; Costa, D.; Philippot, M.; Cardellini, G.; Hosen, M.S.; Coosemans, T.; Messagie, M. Life cycle assessment of battery electric vehicles: Implications of future electricity mix and different battery end-of-life management. Sci. Total Environ.; 2022; 831, 154859. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.154859]
9. Winjobi, O.; Dai, Q.; Kelly, J. Update of Bill-of-Materials and Cathode Chemistry addition for Lithium-ion Batteries in GREET; Systems Assessment Group, Argonne National Laboratory: Chicago, IL, USA, 2020.
10. European Parliament. Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2023 Concerning Batteries and Waste Batteries, Amending Directive 2008/98/EC and Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Repealing Directive 2006/66/EC (Text with EEA relevance), 28 July 2023. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1542/oj (accessed on 19 April 2024).
11. Tytgat, J. The Road to Climate-Neutral EV Batteries: Opportunities and Regulatory Framework. Proceedings of the 29th CIRP Conference on Life Cycle Engineering; Leuven, Belgium, 4–6 April 2022.
12. Chen, Q.; Lai, X.; Gu, H.; Tang, X.; Gao, F.; Han, X.; Zheng, Y. Investigating carbon footprint and carbon reduction potential using a cradle-to-cradle LCA approach on lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles in China. J. Clean. Prod.; 2022; 369, 133342. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.133342]
13. Lovins, A. Six Solutions to Battery Mineral Challenges, The Rocky Mountain Institute RMI, 2022. Available online: https://rmi.org/insight/six-solutions-to-battery-mineral-challenges/ (accessed on 20 April 2024).
14. Abdelbaky, M.; Schwich, L.; Henriques, J.; Friedrich, B.; Peeters, J.R.; Dewulf, W. Global warming potential of lithium-ion battery cell production: Determining influential primary and secondary raw material supply routes. Clean. Logist. Supply Chain.; 2023; 9, 100130. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clscn.2023.100130]
15. Da Silva Lima, L.; Quartier, M.; Buchmayr, A.; Sanjuan-Delmás, D.; Laget, H.; Corbisier, D.; Mertens, J.; Dewulf, J. Life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries and vanadium redox flow batteries-based renewable energy storage systems. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess.; 2021; 46, 101286. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2021.101286]
16. Lai, X.; Chen, Q.; Tang, X.; Zhou, Y.; Gao, F.; Guo, Y.; Bhagat, R.; Zheng, Y. Critical review of life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles: A lifespan perspective. eTransportation; 2022; 12, 100169. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.etran.2022.100169]
17. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Understanding Global Warming Potentials. EPA. 27 March 2024; Available online: https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials (accessed on 26 April 2024).
18. Kallitsis, E.; Korre, A.; Kelsall, G.; Kupfersberger, M.; Nie, Z. Environmental life cycle assessment of the production in China of lithium-ion batteries with nickel-cobalt-manganese cathodes utilising novel electrode chemistries. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 254, 120067. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120067]
19. Phogat, P.; Rawat, S.; Dey, S.; Wan, M. Advancements and challenges in sodium-ion batteries: A comprehensive review of materials, mechanisms, and future directions for sustainable energy storage. J. Alloys Compd.; 2025; 1020, 179544. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jallcom.2025.179544]
20. Zhao, L.; Zhang, T. Engineering of Sodium-Ion Batteries: Opportunities and Challenges. Engineering; 2023; 24, pp. 172-183. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2021.08.032]
21. Haynes, W.M. CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016.
22. Berg, E.J.; Villevieille, C.; Streich, D.; Trabesinger, S.; Novák, P. Rechargeable Batteries: Grasping for the Limits of Chemistry. J. Electrochem. Soc.; 2015; 162, A2468. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1149/2.0081514jes]
23. Rudola, A.; Rennie, A.J.R.; Heap, R.; Meysami, S.S.; Lowbridge, A.; Mazzali, F.; Sayers, R.; Wright, C.J.; Barker, J. Commercialisation of high energy density sodium-ion batteries: Faradion’s journey and outlook. J. Mater. Chem. A; 2021; 13, pp. 8279-8302. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1039/D1TA00376C]
24. Xu, H.; Zhang, G.; Zhang, J.; Liu, J.; Peng, K. Comparative analysis of electrochemical properties and thermal behaviors of sodium ion and lithium ion batteries. Int. J. Electrochem. Sci.; 2025; 20, 101027. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijoes.2025.101027]
25. Zhang, S.; Steubing, B.; Potter, H.K.; Hansson, P.-A.; Nordberg, A. Future climate impacts of sodium-ion batteries. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.; 2024; 202, 107362. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107362]
26. Kallitsis, E. Life-Cycle Modelling of Lithium-ion Batteries for Electric Vehicles; Imperial College London: London, UK, 2023.
27. Chordia, M.; Nordelöf, A.; Ellingsen, L.A.-W. Environmental life cycle implications of upscaling lithium-ion battery production. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.; 2021; 26, pp. 2024-2039. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01976-0]
28. CATL. CATL Unveiled its Carbon Neutrality Plan. 18 April 2023; Available online: https://www.catl.com/en/news/6014.html (accessed on 2 May 2024).
29. Northvolt, A.B. Introducing Northvolt’s Sustainability Report 2021; Northvolt AB: Stockholm, Sweden, 2021.
30. Tesla. Tesla Sustainability Report 2022; Tesla: Austin, TX, USA, 2022.
31. Linder, M.; Nauclér, T.; Nekovar, S.; Pfeiffer, A.; Vekić, N. The Race to Decarbonize Electric-Vehicle Batteries, McKinsey & Company, 23 January 2023. Available online: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/automotive-and-assembly/our-insights/the-race-to-decarbonize-electric-vehicle-batteries (accessed on 2 May 2024).
32. Degen, F.; Winter, M.; Bendig, D.; Tübke, J. Energy consumption of current and future production of lithium-ion and post lithium-ion battery cells. Nat. Energy; 2023; 8, pp. 1284-1295. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41560-023-01355-z]
33. Schenker, V.; Oberschelp, C.; Pfister, S. Regionalized life cycle assessment of present and future lithium production for Li-ion batteries. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.; 2022; 187, 106611. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106611]
34. Chordia, M.; Wickerts, S.; Nordelöf, A.; Arvidsson, R. Life cycle environmental impacts of current and future battery-grade lithium supply from brine and spodumene. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.; 2022; 187, 106634. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106634]
35. Norilsk Nickel. Norilsk Nickel ESG Presentation; NorNickel: Moscow, Russia, 2022.
36. International Energy Agency. The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions; IEA: Paris, France, 2021.
37. Baars, J.; Domenech, T.; Bleischwitz, R.; Melin, H.E.; Heidrich, O. Circular economy strategies for electric vehicle batteries reduce reliance on raw materials. Nat. Sustain.; 2021; 4, pp. 71-79. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00607-0]
38. Zhang, T.; Bai, Y.; Shen, X.; Zhai, Y.; Ji, C.; Ma, X.; Hong, J. Cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of cobalt sulfate production derived from a nickel–copper–cobalt mine in China. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.; 2021; 26, pp. 1198-1210. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01925-x]
39. Engels, P.; Cerdas, F.; Dettmer, T.; Frey, C.; Hentschel, J.; Herrmann, C.; Mirfabrikikar, T.; Schueler, M. Life cycle assessment of natural graphite production for lithium-ion battery anodes based on industrial primary data. J. Clean. Prod.; 2022; 336, 130474. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130474]
40. Surovtseva, D.; Crossin, E.; Pell, R.; Stamford, L. Toward a life cycle inventory for graphite production. Off. J. Int. Soc. Ind. Ecol.; 2022; 26, pp. 964-979. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13234]
41. Kallitsis, E.; Lindsay, J.J.; Chordia, M.; Wu, B.; Offer, G.J.; Edge, J.S. Think global act local: The dependency of global lithium-ion battery emissions on production location and material sources. J. Clean. Prod.; 2024; 449, 141725. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141725]
42. Kelly, J.C.; Dai, Q.; Wang, M. Globally regional life cycle analysis of automotive lithium-ion nickel manganese cobalt batteries. Mitig. Adapt. Strategy Glob. Change; 2020; 25, pp. 371-396. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11027-019-09869-2]
43. Guo, Z.; Peng, S.; Zhang, H.; Li, T. Life cycle carbon emissions of China’s passenger vehicle sector: A fleet-based study. Procedia CIRP; 2024; 122, pp. 67-72. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2024.02.004]
44. Mårtensson, H.B.; Hojer, M. Low emission scenarios with shared and electric cars: Analyzing life cycle emissions, biofuel use, battery utilization, and fleet development. Int. J. Sustain. Transp.; 2024; 18, pp. 115-133. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2023.2248049]
45. Shang, H.; Sun, Y.; Huang, D.; Meng, F. Life cycle assessment of atmospheric environmental impact on the large-scale promotion of electric vehicles in China. Resour. Environ. Sustain.; 2024; 15, 100148. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resenv.2024.100148]
46. Chen, L.; Ma, R. Clean energy synergy with electric vehicles: Insights into carbon footprint. Energy Strategy Rev.; 2024; 53, 101394. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2024.101394]
47. Soares, L.O.; Sodre, J.R.; Boloy, R.A.M. Lifecycle assessment and environmental impacts of hybrid electric vehicles fuelled by bioethanol and biogas. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2025; 216, 115652. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2025.115652]
48. Yuan, H.; Ma, M.; Zhou, N.; Xie, H.; Ma, Z.; Xiang, X. Battery electric vehicle charging in China: Energy demand and emissions trends in the 2020s. Appl. Energy; 2024; 365, 123153. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.123153]
49. Hossain, M.N.; Hasan, M.M.; Habib, M.A.; Ferdous, F.B.; Rahman, S. Assessing economic viability and environmental impact of solar-powered EV charging station in Gazipur, Bangladesh: A case study. Sol. Compass; 2024; 12, 100091. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.solcom.2024.100091]
50. Tozluoğlu, Ç.; Liao, Y.; Sprei, F. Potential of e-bikes to replace passenger car trips and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. J. Cycl. Micromobility Res.; 2024; 2, 100043. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmr.2024.100043]
51. Manjong, N.B.; Usai, L.; Orangi, S.; Clos, D.P.; Strømman, A.H. Exploring raw material contributions to the greenhouse gas emissions of lithium-ion battery production. J. Energy Storage; 2024; 100, 113566. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2024.113566]
52. Tournaviti, M.; Michailidou, A.V.; Savva, C.; Vlachokostas, C. Bridging the gap between life cycle assessment and lithium-ion batteries for electrification of vehicles: A critical review towards unified frameworks. Future Batter.; 2025; 5, 100047. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fub.2025.100047]
53. Lagos, G.; Cifuentes, L.; Peters, D.; Castro, L.; Valdés, J.M. Carbon footprint and water inventory of the production of lithium in the Atacama Salt Flat, Chile. Environ. Chall.; 2024; 16, 100962. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envc.2024.100962]
54. Xu, C.; Steubing, B.; Hu, M.; Harpprecht, C.; van der Meide, M.; Tukker, A. Future greenhouse gas emissions of automotive lithium-ion battery cell production. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.; 2022; 187, 106606. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106606]
55. Balaram, V.; Santosh, M.; Satyanarayanan, M.; Srinivas, N.; Gupta, H. Lithium: A review of applications, occurrence, exploration, extraction, recycling, analysis, and environmental impact. Geosci. Front.; 2024; 15, 101868. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2024.101868]
56. Bruno, M.; Fiore, S. Review of lithium-ion batteries’ supply-chain in Europe: Material flow analysis and environmental assessment. J. Environ. Manag.; 2024; 358, 120758. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120758]
57. Wang, Y.; Witlox, F. Global trends in electric vehicle adoption and the impact of environmental awareness, user attributes, and barriers. Energy Rep.; 2025; 13, pp. 1125-1137. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2024.12.054]
58. Buyacar. Used Mercedes-Benz for Sale|Buy Online with Finance, Buyacar. Available online: https://www.buyacar.co.uk/cars?fueltype=Petrol&make=Mercedes-Benz&vehicle_type=car&year=%5B2021%20TO%202024%5D&sortby=rating&order=desc (accessed on 8 June 2024).
59. Nationwide-Cars. Cheap New Cars for Sale, Nationawide-Cars. Available online: https://www.nationwide-cars.co.uk/cars/ (accessed on 8 June 2024).
60. Electric Vehicle Database. Cheapest Full Electric Vehicle, Electric Vehicle Database. 2024; Available online: https://ev-database.org/compare/cheapest-electric-vehicle#sort:path~type~order=.pricesort~number~asc|make-checkbox-dropdown:pathGroup=.ford|rs-price:prev~next=10000~100000|rs-range:prev~next=0~1000|rs-fastcharge:prev~next=0~1500|rs-acceleration:prev~next= (accessed on 9 June 2024).
61. World Nuclear Association. Carbon Dioxide Emissions From Electricity, World Nuclear Association. 30 April 2024. Available online: https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/energy-and-the-environment/carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-electricity#life-cycle-emissions-of-electricity-options (accessed on 25 June 2024).
62. Malik, F.H.; Mubbashir, A.; Lehtonen, M. Collaborative Demand Response Optimization of Electric Vehicles and Storage Space Heating for Residential Peak Shaving. Int. Rev. Electr. Eng.; 2014; 9, pp. 1154-1161. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15866/iree.v9i6.4829]
63. Malik, F.H.; Lehtonen, M. Comparison of Electric Vehicles Charging Strategies and Their Impact on Network Capacity. Int. Rev. Electr. Eng.; 2015; 10, pp. 214-220. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15866/iree.v10i2.5375]
64. Domínguez, C.; Doña, A.; Navarro-Espinosa, A. Is single-phase residential EV fast-charging a good idea? Evidence from optimal charging plans based on realistic data. Int. J. Electr. Power Energy Syst.; 2023; 152, 109231. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2023.109231]
65. Barman, P.; Dutta, L.; Bordoloi, S.; Kalita, A.; Azzopardi, B. Renewable energy integration with electric vehicle technology: A review of the existing smart charging approaches. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2023; 183, 113518. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113518]
66. Li, M.; Wang, Y.; Peng, P.; Chen, Z. Toward efficient smart management: A review of modeling and optimization approaches in electric vehicle-transportation network-grid integration. Green Energy Intell. Transp.; 2024; 3, 100181. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geits.2024.100181]
67. Barzdukas, A. Wired vs Wireless Charging Efficiency for EVs: A Comparison, WiTricity, 23 February 2022. Available online: https://witricity.com/media/blog/what-is-efficiency-how-do-you-measure-it-and-why-should-you-care#:~:text=So%2C%20the%20%E2%80%9Cefficiency%E2%80%9D%20of,on%20which%20one%20you%20buy (accessed on 30 June 2024).
68. Go-e. EV Charging Efficiency: Why Are There Energy Losses and How to Avoid Them? Go-e, 11 October 2022. Available online: https://go-e.com/en/magazine/ev-charging-losses (accessed on 30 June 2024).
69. Nedelea, A. How Efficient Is Each Type Of EV Charger? InsideEVs. 8 March 2024; Available online: https://insideevs.com/features/711659/ev-charger-efficiency-losses/ (accessed on 30 June 2024).
70. Saraswathi, V.N. A comprehensive review on charger technologies, types, and charging stations models for electric vehicles. Heliyon; 2024; 10, e38945. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e38945] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39640677]
71. Hakam, Y.; Gaga, A.; Elhadadi, B. Exploring the state of electric vehicles: An evidence-based examination of current and future electric vehicle technologies and smart charging stations. Energy Rep.; 2024; 11, pp. 4102-4114. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2024.04.002]
72. European Council. How is EU Electricity Produced and Sold? European Council. 10 April 2025; Available online: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/infographics/how-is-eu-electricity-produced-and-sold/ (accessed on 8 May 2025).
73. Eurostat. Net Electricity Generation by Type of Fuel—Monthly data, Eurostat, 15 April 2025. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/NRG_CB_PEM__custom_16296438/default/table (accessed on 8 May 2025).
74. Stanford Doerr. Global Carbon Emissions From Fossil Fuels Reached Record High in 2023, Stanford. 5 December 2023; Available online: https://sustainability.stanford.edu/news/global-carbon-emissions-fossil-fuels-reached-record-high-2023 (accessed on 8 May 2025).
75. NOWTRICITY. Current Emission in Belgium, NOWTRICITY. 18 April 2025; Available online: https://www.nowtricity.com/country/belgium/ (accessed on 8 May 2025).
76. Will, C.; Zimmermann, F.; Ensslen, A.; Fraunholz, C.; Jochem, P.; Keles, D. Can electric vehicle charging be carbon neutral? Uniting smart charging and renewables. Appl. Energy; 2024; 371, 123549. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2024.123549]
77. Global EV Outlook 2022. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2022 (accessed on 19 December 2024).
78. Bieker, G. A Global Comparison of the Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Combustion Engine and Electric Passenger Cars. Available online: https://theicct.org/publication/a-global-comparison-of-the-life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions-of-combustion-engine-and-electric-passenger-cars/ (accessed on 7 December 2024).
79. Xu, L.; Yilmaz, H.Ü.; Wang, Z.; Poganietz, W.-R.; Jochem, P. Greenhouse gas emissions of electric vehicles in Europe considering different charging strategies. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ.; 2020; 87, 102534. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102534]
80. Hirth, L. The market value of variable renewables: The effect of solar wind power variability on their relative price. Energy Econ.; 2013; 38, pp. 218-236. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2013.02.004]
81. Hawkins, T.R.; Singh, B.; Majeau-Bettez, G.; Strømman, A.H. Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles. J. Ind. Ecol.; 2013; 17, pp. 53-64. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x]
82. Liu, X.; Elgowainy, A.; Vijayagopal, R.; Wang, M. Well-to-wheels analysis of zero-emission plug-in battery electric vehicle technology for medium-and heavy-duty trucks. Environ. Sci. Technol.; 2020; 55, pp. 538-546. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c02931] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33356189]
© 2025 by the authors. Published by MDPI on behalf of the World Electric Vehicle Association. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Ayadi Walid 1
; Hussain, Ghulam Amjad 2
; Maqsood, Haider Zunaib 3
; Alkhatib Fawwaz 1
; Lehtonen Matti 4
1 Department of Electromechanical Engineering, Abu Dhabi Polytechnic, Abu Dhabi 13232, United Arab [email protected] (F.A.)
2 College of Engineering & IT, University of Dubai, Dubai 14143, United Arab Emirates
3 Department of Electrical Engineering, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur, Bahawalpur 63100, Pakistan; [email protected]
4 Department of Electrical Engineering and Automation, Aalto University, 2150 Espoo, Finland; [email protected]