Review of current practices of life cycle assessment in electric mobility: A first step towards method harmonization

IF 10.9 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Hazem Eltohamy , Lauran van Oers , Julia Lindholm , Marco Raugei , Kadambari Lokesh , Joris Baars , Jana Husmann , Nikolas Hill , Robert Istrate , Davis Jose , Fredrik Tegstedt , Antoine Beylot , Pascal Menegazzi , Jeroen Guinée , Bernhard Steubing
{"title":"Review of current practices of life cycle assessment in electric mobility: A first step towards method harmonization","authors":"Hazem Eltohamy ,&nbsp;Lauran van Oers ,&nbsp;Julia Lindholm ,&nbsp;Marco Raugei ,&nbsp;Kadambari Lokesh ,&nbsp;Joris Baars ,&nbsp;Jana Husmann ,&nbsp;Nikolas Hill ,&nbsp;Robert Istrate ,&nbsp;Davis Jose ,&nbsp;Fredrik Tegstedt ,&nbsp;Antoine Beylot ,&nbsp;Pascal Menegazzi ,&nbsp;Jeroen Guinée ,&nbsp;Bernhard Steubing","doi":"10.1016/j.spc.2024.10.026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>It is widely acknowledged that unharmonized methodological and data choices in life cycle assessments (LCAs) can limit comparability and complicate decision-making, ultimately hindering their effectiveness in guiding the rapid transition to electric mobility in Europe. The electric mobility sector aims to harmonize these assumptions and choices to improve comparability and better support decision-making. To support these efforts, this article aims to review the LCA practices across various sources in order to identify where key differences in assumptions, methodological approaches, and data selection occur in relevant LCA topics. In addition to this primary objective, we highlight certain practices that could serve as starting points for ongoing harmonization attempts, pointing out topics where it is challenging to do so. Our results showed that cradle-to-grave system boundary is the most commonly adopted in vehicle and traction battery LCAs, with maintenance and capital goods often excluded. The distance-based functional unit is dominant. Choices in Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) showed the greatest diversity and need for harmonization. Data quality and availability vary significantly by life cycle stage, with no standardized data collection approach in place. A lack of primary data is most prominent in the raw material acquisition and end of life (EoL) life cycle stages. Electricity consumption is a key topic in the EV sector, with major debates surrounding location-based versus market-based and static versus dynamic modeling. Multifunctionality problems are vaguely defined and resolved in the literature. For EoL multifunctionality, cut-off and avoided burden are prevalent, while allocation is common upstream. Impact assessments primarily follow the ReCiPe and CML-IA methods, with climate change, acidification, photochemical ozone formation, and eutrophication being the most reported impact categories. Systematic uncertainty propagation is rare in interpretations, with sensitivity analyses typically focusing on energy consumption, total mileage, and battery recycling rates. Overall, the review showed a big variation in assumptions and choices in EV LCA studies, particularly in the LCI stage. Among the discussed topics, we identified multifunctionality and electricity modeling as particularly contentious.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48619,"journal":{"name":"Sustainable Production and Consumption","volume":"52 ","pages":"Pages 299-313"},"PeriodicalIF":10.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sustainable Production and Consumption","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352550924003129","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is widely acknowledged that unharmonized methodological and data choices in life cycle assessments (LCAs) can limit comparability and complicate decision-making, ultimately hindering their effectiveness in guiding the rapid transition to electric mobility in Europe. The electric mobility sector aims to harmonize these assumptions and choices to improve comparability and better support decision-making. To support these efforts, this article aims to review the LCA practices across various sources in order to identify where key differences in assumptions, methodological approaches, and data selection occur in relevant LCA topics. In addition to this primary objective, we highlight certain practices that could serve as starting points for ongoing harmonization attempts, pointing out topics where it is challenging to do so. Our results showed that cradle-to-grave system boundary is the most commonly adopted in vehicle and traction battery LCAs, with maintenance and capital goods often excluded. The distance-based functional unit is dominant. Choices in Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) showed the greatest diversity and need for harmonization. Data quality and availability vary significantly by life cycle stage, with no standardized data collection approach in place. A lack of primary data is most prominent in the raw material acquisition and end of life (EoL) life cycle stages. Electricity consumption is a key topic in the EV sector, with major debates surrounding location-based versus market-based and static versus dynamic modeling. Multifunctionality problems are vaguely defined and resolved in the literature. For EoL multifunctionality, cut-off and avoided burden are prevalent, while allocation is common upstream. Impact assessments primarily follow the ReCiPe and CML-IA methods, with climate change, acidification, photochemical ozone formation, and eutrophication being the most reported impact categories. Systematic uncertainty propagation is rare in interpretations, with sensitivity analyses typically focusing on energy consumption, total mileage, and battery recycling rates. Overall, the review showed a big variation in assumptions and choices in EV LCA studies, particularly in the LCI stage. Among the discussed topics, we identified multifunctionality and electricity modeling as particularly contentious.
回顾电动汽车生命周期评估的现行做法:统一方法的第一步
人们普遍认为,生命周期评估(LCA)中未统一的方法和数据选择会限制可比性并使决策复杂化,最终阻碍其有效指导欧洲向电动交通的快速过渡。电动交通领域的目标是协调这些假设和选择,以提高可比性并更好地支持决策。为了支持这些努力,本文旨在审查各种来源的生命周期评估实践,以确定相关生命周期评估主题在假设、方法论和数据选择方面的关键差异。除这一主要目标外,我们还强调了某些可作为当前统一尝试起点的实践,并指出了具有挑战性的主题。我们的研究结果表明,"从摇篮到坟墓 "的系统边界是车辆和牵引电池生命周期评估中最常采用的,而维护和资本货物通常不包括在内。基于距离的功能单元占主导地位。生命周期清单(LCI)中的选择显示出最大的多样性和协调性需求。各生命周期阶段的数据质量和可用性差异很大,没有标准化的数据收集方法。原始数据的缺乏在原材料获取和生命周期终结(EoL)阶段最为突出。电力消耗是电动汽车领域的一个关键议题,围绕基于地点的建模与基于市场的建模、静态建模与动态建模展开了激烈争论。文献中对多功能性问题的定义和解决方法含糊不清。对于 EoL 多功能性而言,切断和避免负担很普遍,而上游分配则很常见。影响评估主要采用 ReCiPe 和 CML-IA 方法,气候变化、酸化、光化学臭氧形成和富营养化是报告最多的影响类别。系统的不确定性传播在解释中很少见,敏感性分析通常集中在能源消耗、总里程和电池回收率上。总体而言,综述显示电动汽车生命周期评估研究中的假设和选择存在很大差异,尤其是在生命周期影响指标阶段。在讨论的主题中,我们发现多功能性和电力建模尤其有争议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Sustainable Production and Consumption
Sustainable Production and Consumption Environmental Science-Environmental Engineering
CiteScore
17.40
自引率
7.40%
发文量
389
审稿时长
13 days
期刊介绍: Sustainable production and consumption refers to the production and utilization of goods and services in a way that benefits society, is economically viable, and has minimal environmental impact throughout its entire lifespan. Our journal is dedicated to publishing top-notch interdisciplinary research and practical studies in this emerging field. We take a distinctive approach by examining the interplay between technology, consumption patterns, and policy to identify sustainable solutions for both production and consumption systems.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信