An overview of potential future lifecycle impacts of low carbon vehicles. Shifting to hybrid and electric vehicles will mean that an increasing share of lifecycle GHG emissions come from the production of the vehicle and electricity. Presentation given at the annual LowCVP conference by Nik Hill, knowledge leader for transport technology at Ricardo-AEA

1. © Ricardo-AEA Ltd
www.ricardo-aea.com
Nikolas Hill
Knowledge Leader – Transport Technology and Fuels
Ricardo-AEA
Life-Cycle Assessment for Hybrid
and Electric Vehicles
“Beyond the Tailpipe” LowCVP Annual Conference 2013
11th July 2013

2. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain2 11th July 2013
 Life-Cycle Assessment in the automotive sector and
significance for hybrid and electric vehicles
 Project for CCC on LCE (life cycle emissions) for future
low carbon technologies:
‒ Scope and objectives
‒ Lifecycle stages and range of values in the literature
‒ Baseline assumptions for future LCE calculation tool
‒ Key results from the analysis
‒ Summary and conclusions
 Overall potential implications for policy and businesses
Overview

3. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain3 11th July 2013
Current tailpipe CO2 metric insufficient to
compare impacts of hybrid and electric vehicles
due to upstream fuel/vehicle production GHG
 Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is key for future
vehicle technology and fuel comparisons
Well-to-wheel (WTW) is the specific LCA used
for transport fuel/vehicle systems (but limited to
the fuel itself) – used for biofuels in particular
LCA Methodologies
Part 1: Use of LCA in the automotive sector
Life Cycle Assessment Framework
Goal and
Scope
Definition
Inventory
Analysis
Impact
Assessment
Interpretation
LCA ISO (14040/14044) standards only provide
general guidelines  different models,
methodologies and assumptions are often used
Many OEMs conduct ISO compliant/high quality
LCA studies of their vehicles as part of their
Environmental Management strategies
Several OEMs publish the results from their
LCA, but it is not clear if different OEMs use the
same set of assumptions or input data sets

4. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain4 11th July 2013
Currently, there are no automotive targets specifically aimed at
reducing CO2 from production of the whole vehicle
WTT emissions are also not factored into vehicle CO2 regulations
Issues for both hybrid and electric vehicles:
Availability of reliable real-world performance data (i.e. MJ/km)
Wide range of literature reported values for battery GHG intensity
Uncertainty on battery lifetime performance/potential replacement
Issues for plug-in EVs only (PHEVs, REEVs and BEVs):
Very large variation in regional electricity GHG intensity and in
estimates for future decarbonisation  affects all lifecycle stages
Average or marginal electricity? Recharge at night or in daytime?
Most studies also DON’T typically account for:
a) Upstream emissions of fuels used in electricity generation (+16% for UK)
b) Projected changes in electricity GHG intensity over the vehicle lifetime
Accounting for recharging losses (often excluded)
LCA Methodologies
Part 2: Key considerations for hybrid and electric vehicles

5. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain5 11th July 2013
Previous CCC advice include ‘low-carbon’ technologies which reduce
emissions at point-of-use relative to counterfactual
Ricardo-AEA undertook an analysis considering lifecycle emissions
(LCEs) for various technologies in several sectors, going beyond the
point-of-use to provide estimates from the current situation out to 2050
NOT a detailed LCA: objective was to provide estimates (from existing
studies) of current LCEs for UK circumstances and project to 2050
Current LCEs are broken down into relevant categories to allow:
a) Investigation of the influence of key geographical parameters on overall emissions
b) Separation of these emissions into UK and non-UK emissions
c) Exploration of sensitivities for key components and scenarios on how these
emissions might be reduced
Work involved a literature review and development of spread sheet
calculation tools for the different technology areas
Future impacts of biofuel use excluded from analysis (set at 2012 mix)
Current and Future Lifecycle Emissions of Key ‘Low Carbon’
Technologies and Alternatives, a project for CCC

6. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain6 11th July 2013
Vehicle
Manufacture
Vehicle
Transport
Vehicle
Operation
Refuelling
Infrastructure
End of Life
Disposal
• Five key stages were
identified as accounting
for the most significant
GHG emission components
of the road vehicle lifecycle (that
could also reasonably be quantified)
The road vehicle lifecycle
Materials (Fe, Al, etc)
Components
Manufacturing energy
Road
Rail
Ship
Energy Consumption
Maintenance
Refrigerant leakage
Conventional fuels
Electric recharging
Hydrogen refuelling
Recycling
Refrigerant
Fuel use

7. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain7 11th July 2013
 Principal differences between values in the studies were largely due to a combination of
the following factors / assumptions for the analysis:
(i) lifetime km (= vehicle lifetime x annual km), (ii) vehicle size/specification,
(iii) lifecycle stages covered, (iv) grid electricity GHG intensity,
(v) batteries used (size in kg or kWh, assumptions on GHG intensity of manufacture)
Range of overall LCEs in the literature
Road transport technologies
Wide range of studies
identified and preliminarily
screened for suitability
Studies selected to be taken
forward for further analysis
included some or all of the
following elements:
Compared as many
technologies as possible
Provided sufficient detail/
breakdown for the analysis
Provided additional
information/detail on certain
aspects (e.g. battery tech,
refuelling infrastructure, etc)
Other studies also used to
provide/supplement key data
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
ICE HEV PHEV REEV BEV
Car
gCO2e/Km
Patterson et al. 2011
Samaras & Meisterling
2008
Hawkins et al. 2012
Ma et al. 2012
Lucas et al. 2012
Helms et al, 2010
Zamel & Li 2006
Burnham et al. 2006
[This study]

8. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain8 11th July 2013
 Fuel factors are average over the operational lifetime for a vehicle in a given year
 Future vehicle performance/characteristics from CCC modelling and recent publications
Base case scenario assumptions:
Energy and materials intensity trajectories, vehicle characteristics
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
kgCO2/kg
Steel (Base)
Steel-Base-UK
Steel-Base-OECD
Europe
Steel-Base-OECD
Other
Steel-Base-Car
Average
Steel-Base-HGV
Average
Steel-Base-non
OECD
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
kgCO2/kg
Aluminium (Base)
Aluminium-Base-UK
Aluminium-Base-
OECD Europe
Aluminium-Base-
OECD Other
Aluminium-Base-Car
Average
Aluminium-Base-
HGV Average
Aluminium-Base-non
OECD
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
kgCO2/kWh
Battery (Base)
Battery-Base-UK
Battery-Base-OECD
Europe
Battery-Base-OECD
Other
Battery-Base-Car
Average
Battery-Base-HGV
Average
Battery-Base-non
OECD
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
gCO2/kWh(lifetimeaverage)
Fuels (Base)
Petrol Base UK
Diesel Base UK
Electricity Base UK
Hydrogen Base UK
Natural gas Base UK

9. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain9 11th July 2013
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2010 ICE Car 2010 BEV Car
gCO2e/km
Emissions Breakdown (excluding operational fuel)
Dismantalling refrigerant leakage
Dismantalling fuel use
Refuelling infrastructure
Operation Refrigerant Leakage
Operation Maintenance
Transport Total
Manufacture fuel use
Manufacture Refrigerant Leakage
Components Battery
Materials Other
Materials CFRP
Materials Textile
Materials Glass
Materials Rubber
Materials Plastics
Materials Magnesium
Materials Aluminium
Materials Iron & Steel
87%
13%
Petrol ICE Car
Fuel
Other
2010
52%48%
BEV Car
Fuel
Other
2010
Breakdown of LCEs from the developed model:
Detailed split for 2010 Petrol ICE and BEV cars
The uncertainty in and
significance of GHG
emissions from battery
production in the
literature prompted more
detailed investigation of
the component
breakdown in order to
better understand
potential future trajectory
/ key sensitivities
Total g/km
Total g/km
* Battery production GHG intensity based on intermediate value in literature from Ricardo (2012)
*

10. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain10 11th July 2013
Breakdown of LCEs from the developed model:
Future trajectory of detailed split for BEV cars (baseline)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
gCO2e/km
Emissions Breakdown (excluding operational fuel) - BEV Car
Dismantalling refrigerant leakage
Dismantalling fuel use
Refuelling infrastructure
Operation Refrigerant Leakage
Operation Maintenance
Transport Total
Manufacture fuel use
Manufacture Refrigerant Leakage
Components Battery
Materials Other
Materials CFRP
Materials Textile
Materials Glass
Materials Rubber
Materials Plastics
Materials Magnesium
Materials Aluminium
Materials Iron & Steel
 Significance of
batteries in
overall LCE
footprint of BEVs
is anticipated to
decrease
significantly in the
long term under
the base case:
 Battery GHG
reduction due to:
i. Reduced
battery weight
(/materials);
ii. Decarbonised
manufacturing
energy
iii.Improved
recycling
iv.Reduced GHG
intensity of
materials used

11. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain11 11th July 2013
 2010 petrol car = 159.5 gCO2/km (test cycle)
 ICE > HEV > PHEV > REEV > BEV
 Manufacturing emissions share increases in
future, particularly for BEVs
 Reduced savings from EVs (relative to ICE) -
but total LCEs still much lower than for ICE
 Recharging infrastructure a small but still
significant component (but more uncertainty)
 5 gCO2e/km due to refrigerants in 2010
Base case scenario for cars:
Breakdown by lifecycle stage
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
gCO2e/km
Petrol ICE Car, Scenario 1: Base case
Disposal
Infrastructure
Operation
Transport
Manufacture
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
gCO2e/km
BEV Car, Scenario 1: Base case
Disposal
Infrastructure
Operation
Transport
Manufacture
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
gCO2e/km
Petrol PHEV Car, Scenario 1: Base case
Disposal
Infrastructure
Operation
Transport
Manufacture

12. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain12 11th July 2013
 Proportion of emissions outside UK doesn’t
change much over time for ICE (2010: ~8%)
and PHEV (2010: ~16%) technologies
 >40% of BEV emissions are outside of the
UK in 2010, potentially rising to 66% by 2050
(due to vehicle and battery production)
 In the Worst Case scenario (with very high
emissions due mainly to the batteries) over
86% of BEV LCE could occur outside of the
UK by 2050 (also due to reduction in
operational LCE)
Base case scenario for cars:
Emissions in the UK vs overseas
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
gCO2e/km
Petrol ICE Car, Scenario 1: Base case
NonUK
Emissions
UK Emissions
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
gCO2e/km
Petrol PHEV Car, Scenario 1: Base case
NonUK
Emissions
UK Emissions
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
gCO2e/km
BEV Car, Scenario 1: Base case
NonUK
Emissions
UK Emissions

13. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain13 11th July 2013
78%
22%
Petrol PHEV Car
Fuel
Other
2010
84%
16%
Petrol PHEV Car
Fuel
Other
2050
52%48%
BEV Car
Fuel
Other
2010
7%
93%
BEV Car
Fuel
Other
2050
87%
13%
Petrol ICE Car
Fuel
Other
2010
91%
9%
Petrol ICE Car
Fuel
Other
2050
Base case scenario for cars:
Split of LCE for different powertrains for 2010 and 2050
Total 265 g/km
Total 127 g/km Total 78 g/km
Total 136 g/kmTotal 185 g/km
Total 16 g/km

14. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain14 11th July 2013
 Battery developments are critical to achieve
the maximum savings potential (2050:-90%)
 Worst case BEVs show only 26% reduction
on base ICE in 2050 (at current biofuel
levels). BUT battery replacement unlikely
under current lifetime km assumptions
versus current manufacturer warranties
 BEVs show 55% improvement over Petrol
ICE in 2050 for more realistic alternate
worst case + high lifetime km scenario
(16,000 mi/yr = 57 g/km LCEs for BEVs)
Sensitivity analysis for cars:
Best Case and Worst Case
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
gCO2e/km
Year
Sensitivity Range
Petrol ICE Car (best)
Petrol PHEV Car (best)
BEV Car (best)
Petrol ICE Car (worst)
Petrol PHEV Car (worst)
BEV Car (worst)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2050 2010 2050 2010 2050 2010 2050 2010 2050
Petrol ICE
Car
Petrol HEV
Car
Petrol PHEV
Car
Petrol REEV
Car
BEV Car
gCO2e/km
Scenario 9: Best Case
Disposal
Infrastructure
Operation
Transport
Battery
replacement
Manufacture
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2010 2050 2010 2050 2010 2050 2010 2050 2010 2050
Petrol ICE
Car
Petrol HEV
Car
Petrol PHEV
Car
Petrol REEV
Car
BEV Car
gCO2e/km
Scenario 10: Worst Case
Disposal
Infrastructure
Operation
Transport
Battery
replacement
Manufacture

15. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain15 11th July 2013
 Base scenario for 2010 shows that operational GHG emissions over lifetime of vehicle
decrease in the following order ICE > equivalent HEV > PHEV > REEV > BEV
 Sensitivity analysis highlighted battery developments are critical to achieve the max.
GHG savings for BEVs (and REEVs, PHEVs to a lesser extent):
‒ Improvements in battery cycle/lifetime to minimise the likelihood of replacements
‒ Improvements in battery energy density to reduce material use
‒ Improvements in recycling practices to generate savings through recovered materials
‒ Regional (UK/European) battery production to minimise GHG
‒ Improvements in battery manufacture GHG intensity (i.e. production energy and
materials)
 BUT in worst case scenario with high lifetime km (+one battery replacement), BEVs still
have ~55% reduction on equivalent ICE by 2050 (at current UK average biofuel levels)
 Future NonUK emissions share unlikely to increase much for ICE (~9%) and PHEV
(~18%), but could increase significantly for BEV (currently 41%, potentially rising to
66% by 2050). (Primarily from significant reduction in operational, other UK elements)
 Recharging infrastructure more uncertain; a small but likely still significant component
(>3% for BEVs in 2010), but could be potentially more significant in the longer term.
Summary and Conclusions:
Part 1 – From Ricardo-AEA study for CCC

16. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain16 11th July 2013
 Publication of industry LCA studies would help facilitate understanding
 Ideally need to track vehicle LCA in a more consistent basis before could
even think about whether/how a regulatory approach might be adopted (or not)
 Future vehicle CO2 regulations should likely at least factor in WTW emissions
 Recommendations from Ricardo (2011) report for LowCVP are still relevant:
− Consider a new CO2 metric based on the GHG emissions emitted during vehicle
production [tCO2e] (and more tightly define scope/specification for this)
− Consider targets aimed at reducing the life cycle CO2 [tCO2e]
− Consider the fiscal and regulatory framework in which vehicles are sold, used and
disposed
 Need to develop a better understanding of battery production emissions and
impacts of technology development and ensure future developments do
significantly reduce battery production/disposal emissions
 Further research is also needed to quantify the relative impacts of different
infrastructure types/mixes, and the likely 2050 requirements
Summary and Conclusions:
Part 2 – Potential implications for policy and businesses

17. © Ricardo-AEA LtdUnclassified – Public Domain17 11th July 2013
For further information see full study report available from CCC’s website at:
http://www.theccc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Ricardo-
AEA-lifecycle-emissions-low-carbon-technologies-April-2013.pdf
Further information

18. © Ricardo-AEA Ltd
www.ricardo-aea.com
T:
E:
W:
Ricardo-AEA Ltd
Gemini Building,
Fermi Avenue,
Harwell, Didcot,
Oxfordshire,
OX11 0QR,
Nikolas Hill
Knowledge Leader – Transport Technology and Fuels
+44 (0)1235 753522
nikolas.hill@ricardo-aea.com
www.ricardo-aea.com