Electric Cars: Technical Characteristics and Environmental Impacts

Helmers and Marx Environmental Sciences Europe 2012, 24:14
http://www.enveurope.com/content/24/1/14
REVIEW Open Access
Electric cars: technical characteristics and

environmental impacts
Eckard Helmers* and Patrick Marx
Abstract
Background: Electric vehicles have been identified as being a key technology in reducing future emissions and
energy consumption in the mobility sector. The focus of this article is to review and assess the energy efficiency
and the environmental impact of battery electric cars (BEV), which is the only technical alternative on the market
available today to vehicles with internal combustion engine (ICEV). Electricity onboard a car can be provided either
by a battery or a fuel cell (FCV). The technical structure of BEV is described, clarifying that it is relatively simple
compared to ICEV. Following that, ICEV can be ‘e-converted’ by experienced personnel. Such an e-conversion
project generated reality-close data reported here.
Results: Practicability of today's BEV is discussed, revealing that particularly small-size BEVs are useful. This article
reports on an e-conversion of a used Smart. Measurements on this car, prior and after conversion, confirmed a
fourfold energy efficiency advantage of BEV over ICEV, as supposed in literature. Preliminary energy efficiency data
of FCV are reviewed being only slightly lower compared to BEV. However, well-to-wheel efficiency suffers from 47%
to 63% energy loss during hydrogen production. With respect to energy efficiency, BEVs are found to represent the
only alternative to ICEV. This, however, is only true if the electricity is provided by very efficient power plants or
better by renewable energy production. Literature data on energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG)
emission by ICEV compared to BEV suffer from a 25% underestimation of ICEV-standardized driving cycle numbers
in relation to street conditions so far. Literature data available for BEV, on the other hand, were mostly modeled and
based on relatively heavy BEV as well as driving conditions, which do not represent the most useful field of BEV
operation. Literature data have been compared with measurements based on the converted Smart, revealing a
distinct GHG emissions advantage due to the German electricity net conditions, which can be considerably
extended by charging electricity from renewable sources. Life cycle carbon footprint of BEV is reviewed based on
literature data with emphasis on lithium-ion batteries. Battery life cycle assessment (LCA) data available in literature,
so far, vary significantly by a factor of up to 5.6 depending on LCA methodology approach, but also with respect to
the battery chemistry. Carbon footprint over 100,000 km calculated for the converted 10-year-old Smart exhibits a
possible reduction of over 80% in comparison to the Smart with internal combustion engine.
Conclusion: Findings of the article confirm that the electric car can serve as a suitable instrument towards a much
more sustainable future in mobility. This is particularly true for small-size BEV, which is underrepresented in LCA
literature data so far. While CO2-LCA of BEV seems to be relatively well known apart from the battery, life cycle
impact of BEV in categories other than the global warming potential reveals a complex and still incomplete picture.
Since technology of the electric car is of limited complexity with the exception of the battery, used cars can also be
converted from combustion to electric. This way, it seems possible to reduce CO2-equivalent emissions by 80%
(factor 5 efficiency improvement).
* Correspondence: [email protected]
Institut für angewandtes Stoffstrommanagement (IfaS) am Umwelt-Campus
Birkenfeld, Trier University of Applied Sciences, P.O. Box 1380 Birkenfeld,
D-55761, Germany
© 2012 Helmers and Marx; licensee Springer. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Helmers and Marx Environmental Sciences Europe 2012, 24:14 Page 2 of 15
Keywords: Battery electric vehicles, Sustainable mobility, Traffic emissions, CO2, Internal combustion engine vehicle,
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, Fuel cell vehicles, Life cycle assessment, Global warming potential, Electric conversion
Review have to be replaced by more efficient and environmentally

Introduction friendly alternatives. On the transition to a sustainable so-
On a worldwide scale, 26% of primary energy is consumed ciety, particularly efficient mobility technologies are needed
for transport purposes, and 23% of greenhouse gas emis- worldwide. Electric vehicles have been identified as being
sions is energy-related. Street traffic represents a share of such a technology [4]. In parallel, a couple of countries
74% in the transport sector worldwide (IPCC data from (like Germany, Denmark, and Sweden) have decided to
2007, as summarized in [1]). The transport sector includes switch electricity production from fossil fuel to renewable
aircraft, ships, trains, and all types of street vehicles (e.g., sources, further improving sustainability of electric cars
trucks, buses, cars and two-wheelers). Automobiles play a when compared with ICEV.
particular role for three reasons: First, cars are dominating
the street traffic in most countries. Second, car sales exhibit
the greatest growth rates in the world. Third, there are al- Technology
ternative technologies for the drivetrain available unlike, e. Concepts of electric cars
g., for trucks. While small trucks may also be operated History At the beginning of the automobile's history,
electrically within a limited range, big trucks are dependent two main competing approaches to engine-driven vehi-
on diesel fuel, which can be shifted to a mixture of 80% cles existed: one with internal combustion engine (ICE)
methane (either fossil or biogenic) in the future. Buses can and another one with an electric drivetrain. Already in
also be driven electrically on limited distances; buses driven 1834, the American inventor Thomas Davenport built
by compressed natural gas (methane) are routinely used. the first electric car. The first ICEV was developed in
While fuel cell-driven buses are already on the streets, 1886 by Benz and Daimler in Germany. Around the year
small trucks driven by fuel cells and H2 are still concepts. 1900, electric cars had a significant share of all engine-
In Germany, for example, cars are responsible for 60% of driven cars. At the same time, F. Porsche already
all traffic-related CO2 emissions (German Federal Environ- invented a hybrid electric car equipped with an ICE
ment ministry number for 2010, summarized in [1]). In range extender and wheel hub electric engines. The two
the future, traffic is expected to grow enormously world- different drive trains were competing until Henry Ford,
wide, particularly in developing Asian countries. The in 1908, chose an ICEV for the first mass production of
worldwide vehicle stock of 630 million may grow to one a car in history (summarized in [5]). This way, ICEV
billion in 2030 (data from Shell 2007, reviewed by Angerer won the race early in the twentieth century and displaced
et al. [2]). Vehicle production is expected to grow from 63 the battery electric vehicles (BEV). From an environmen-
to 100 million cars per year until 2030 [2]. In addition to tal perspective, this may have been one of the biggest
the CO2 emissions, modern internal combustion engine mistakes in the history of technology.
vehicles (ICEVs) still have dangerous toxic emissions. Concluding, the BEV does not represent recent ‘high
According to the World Health Organization (WHO) [3], tech’, but a comparatively simple technical concept,
air pollution is a major environmental risk for health and meanwhile available as a series product for more than
is estimated to cause approximately two million premature 110 years. Accordingly, e-conversion, which is the con-
deaths worldwide per year. Since ozone, fine dust, NO2, version of new or used ICEV to electric cars, can easily
and SO2 have been identified by WHO as being the most be implemented by experienced personnel. In contrast,
dangerous kinds which are mainly, or to a substantial ex- the modern lithium-ion battery technology, prerequisite
tent, traffic-derived, traffic will be responsible for approxi- for the everyday life practicability of most BEV, is related
mately half of that quantified costs in lives and health. to very recent technical improvements.
Toxic ICEV emissions cause high health costs even in
industrialized countries: Almost 25% of the European Electric car segments Within the 1990s, electric cars
Union (EU)-25 population live less than 500 m from a were again offered as series products in California due to
road carrying more than three million vehicles per year. its Zero Emission Act (summarized in [5]). After the
Consequently, almost four million years of life are lost Zero Emission Act had been suspended, Partial Zero
each year due to high pollution levels (press release Euro- Emission cars were preferred by the Californian govern-
pean Environmental Agency, 26 February 2007). ment, which prompted the carmaker Toyota to develop
In order to meet future mobility needs, reduce climate as the hybrid vehicle, combining electric and combustion
well as health relevant emissions, and phase out depend- engine. Energy efficiency improved drastically this way
ence on oil (‘peak oil’), today's propulsion technologies (see below); also, the idea of the electric car spread
worldwide parallel to the success of the Toyota Prius. Technical components of an electric car
Since a full hybrid vehicle is able to drive electrically, it According to Larminie and Lowry [9], the main compo-
simply needs a plug and a bigger battery in order to be nents of a BEV can be divided into the electric battery,
charged like a BEV. This way, the category of plug-in hy- the electric motor, and a motor controller (Figure 1).
brid vehicles (PHEV) was created. Within the last 10 The technical structure of a BEV is simpler compared to
years, different drivetrain concepts based on electric ICEV since no starting, exhaust or lubrication system,
motors have been developed and are soon going to enter mostly no gearbox, and sometimes, not even a cooling
mass production. All-electric drive and hybrid electric system are needed.
drive have to be differentiated. In contrast to the hybrid The battery charges with electricity either when
electric drive, in the all-electric car, an electric motor is plugged in the electricity grid via a charging device or
the only energy converter. According to a UN definition during braking through recuperation. The charger is a
from 2003, a hybrid electric drivetrain consists of at least crucial component since its efficiency can vary today be-
two different energy converters (e.g., ICE and electric tween 60% and 97%, wasting 3% to 40% of the grid en-
motor) contributing to the drive system and uses two ergy as heat. The motor controller supplies the electric
different energy storages (e.g., fuel and battery) (see, e.g., motor with variable power depending on the load situ-
UNEP [6]). ation. The electric motor converts the electric energy
Additionally, electricity onboard an electric car can be into mechanical energy and, when used within a drive-
generated by a fuel cell. This technology has been investi- train, to torque. In series BEV produced so far, central
gated for decades, and production of small series of fuel engines have been used; however, hub wheel electric
cell vehicles (FCV) already started or is promised by car- engines are also possible and would be available for mass
makers to be released within the very next years. An FCV production (summarized in [5]).
is an electric vehicle with a different energy storage com- Modern, highly efficient electric motors are based on
pared to battery electric vehicles. It is equipped with a buf- permanent magnetic materials from which the strongest
fer battery, which is, however, much smaller compared to a are alloys containing the rare earth elements (REE) neo-
BEV [7]. dymium and samarium, respectively. Usual alloys are
With respect to strategic and market perspectives as both NdFeB and SmCo magnets [10].
well as life cycle impacts of electric cars, their practic- This has caused some concern since REEs are scarce,
ability in different segments of car sizes needs to be and their export is controlled by a few countries, mainly
investigated (Table 1). Car size is most important in BEV by China (Helmers, unpublished work). However, electric
since battery size must grow in parallel to the vehicle's motors for BEV do not necessarily contain REE. There
weight. are several types of electric motors, usually divided into
In the next years, electric cars will be mostly small- or alternating current (AC) and direct current (DC) types.
mid-size cars due to two main reasons: First, the weight There are both AC and DC electric engines built with
limits the range of operation, which is a factor of suit- and without permanent magnets, according to individual
ability for daily use. Second, battery costs establish an- use.
other main regulating factor: larger cars need bigger and In electric cars, traction motors without magnets are
much more expensive batteries. quite usual since they are cheaper (Loehr C, personal
On the contrary, PHEV and FCV are increasingly use- communication). A subspecies of AC motors are induc-
ful in the segment of medium-size and large cars because tion motors using no REE. The Tesla Roadster is
only a small fraction of energy is needed to be carried in equipped with an induction motor without REE, as will
the battery. The energy density of compressed hydrogen be the forthcoming Tesla Model S and the Toyota
is close to fossil fuels, very much in contrast to the en- RAV4EV. In a more detailed view, it can be stated that
ergy density of available batteries. there are several electric engines available operating
Table 1 Possible market segments of BEV, PHEV, and FCV (after Nemry and Brons [8], completed)
Size of car BEV PHEV FCV
Small Immediate candidate Vehicle packaging problem and high price
are obstacles.
Most useful according to practicability reasons related
to battery size and costs
Medium Useful Privileged segment. Long distance
trips possible. However, H2 filling station
Some models expected within forthcoming years infrastructure required for FCV.
Large Conceivable for specific markets only (e.g., luxury cars)
due to high price and limited range
BEV, battery electric vehicle; PHEV, plug-in hybrid vehicles; FCV, fuel cell vehicle.
prospectus of Alkè Company, Italy, 2010). Also, a certain

share of today's electric cars (e.g., by the Indian company
REVA) are equipped with Pb batteries. In order to diversify
the future battery technology and materials, it would be
HV useful to keep Pb traction batteries for certain applications.
Battery Charger Electric cars for smaller ranges, as e.g., in-town driving, so-
called neighborhood electric vehicles, will be much
cheaper if they are operated with lead-acid batteries in-
Controller stead of a lithium-ion battery. Additionally, there are re-
cent performance improvements of the lead battery,
thanks to a gel matrix and gassing charge [11].
However, the enormous increase in energy density
offered by Li-ion batteries is the prerequisite for the
expected widespread electrification of cars. Nickel metal
Figure 1 Important components of an electric car. (HV, high
hydride batteries were used in the interim time when the
voltage).
re-electrification of the automobile started in the 1990s.
However, they do not offer enough power and have a
without REE magnets: conventional mechanically com- worse environmental impact compared to Li-ion batter-
mutated DC machines, the asynchronous machines, the ies (see below). The only alternative to Li-ion batteries
load-controlled synchronous machines with electrical ex- with comparable power, the Zebra cell (Table 2), is based
citation, and the switched reluctance motors (Gerke W, on molten salt and, thus, only useful for continuous
personal communication). This gives the motor industry every day use. Today, a lot of different Li chemistries are
some flexibility. available, and prices are continuously decreasing for Li-
ion batteries (e.g., summarized in [12]). However, the
Batteries for electric cars price for a complete Li-ion cell set offering 14 kWh cap-
It is still possible and useful to equip electric vehicles with acity, allowing a 100-km electrical range of a small-size
lead-acid batteries. Cars of the Californian interim electric car (like a Smart, see below), is still in the order of 5,000
vehicle boom in the 1990s were partly driven by lead bat- Euro including taxes. Life cycle impacts of the various
teries (Table 2), nevertheless already offering a driving per- Li-ion chemistries differ significantly (see below).
formance comparable to ICE cars. Today, for example,
there are small electric trucks commercially available and Environmental impact of electric cars
equipped with lead batteries and a capacity of 13 to 26 Well-to-wheel efficiency of electric cars
kWh, allowing a maximum range of up to 200 km and a Considering the enormous worldwide increase of mobility
maximum speed of 60 km/h (numbers taken from a expected for the future, the reduction of automobile energy
Table 2 Important materials commercially used in traction batteries for electric vehicles since 1998
Battery type Active chemical components Energy density (Wh/kg) Costs (Euro/kWh) Cars (examples)
Lead-acid Pb/PbO2 30 to 35a up to 100d GM EV1 (1996 to 1999), REVA
H2SO4 10 to 40b 100 to 150a
a
Nickel metal various alloys, as e.g., 60 to 70 300 to 350a Toyota RAV4EV-I (1997-2003), Toyota Prius I-III
hydrides (NiMH) LaNdNiCoSi c
80
50 to 105b
Zebra NaCl-Ni 150c 500e Th!nk City, Smart EV, Smith Electric Vehicles
b
80 to 120
Lithium-ion Li-Ni-Co-Al all types of chemistry: 500 to 750f Th!ink City, Mitsubishi I-MiEV, GM Volt/Opel
120 to 150a Ampera, Nissan Leaf, Tesla
Li-Ni-Mn-Co 500 to 1,000g
LiMn2O4
Li-titanate 85 to 160b
LiFePO4 370h (cells only)
Li-Polymer (LiPo)
Data sources: ahttp://nachhaltigkeit.daimler.com/reports/daimler/annual/2010/nb/German/30201060/elektrische-antriebe.html 3/2011. b[12]. cwww.chemie.de (2011).
d
[11]. e[13]. fOwn market survey, spring 2011. gReviewed in [14]. hPrice for the cells from Chinese production offered in Germany including taxes (November 2011).
demand is one of the most important challenges. In order Efficiency units Efficiencies of different propulsion
to evaluate the technologies available, energy consumption technologies may be expressed either by CO2 equivalent
is divided into the well-to-tank (WTT) and the tank-to- emissions per course unit (e.g., CO2/km), by energy units
wheel (TTW) demands. WTT refers to the stage from the (MJ/km), or by percentages looking at the energy trans-
extraction of feedstock until the delivery of fuel to the ve- formed to motion. Since petrol (in US: gas), diesel, LPG
hicle tank [15]. TTW quantifies the performance of the (propane + butane) as well as natural gas (methane) are
drivetrain. Together, both result in the overall well-to-wheel all hydrocarbons and burn to mainly CO2 while releasing
(WTW) efficiency. The WTW evaluation allows estimation energy, the consumed energy and the CO2 emissions are
of the overall energy and efficiency of automobiles powered proportional. If WTW data are expressed in energy units
by different propulsion technologies (Table 3). or CO2 emissions, they may allow assessing different
Considering the fact that cars (light duty vehicles) technology alternatives at least within the ICE sector.
are so important for worldwide public and private Often, these data include both the fuel chain and the
transport, it is astonishing that there are only two operation of cars (e.g., [22]). However, comparing
technical alternatives to the established ICEV available WTW data of ICEV with alternative technologies is
in the market: battery electric cars and hydrogen-pow- usually complicated by the lack of data and testing
ered fuel cell cars (Table 3). Cars equipped with hydro- schemes for alternative technologies. Good (realistic)
gen-powered fuel cells, however, are not yet available data of one technology compared with bad (unrealis-
as series products, but manufacturers like Mercedes- tic) data regarding the alternative technology can fun-
Benz and Toyota promised to be close to releasing or damentally change the results of the efficiency
have already released a small series of FCV. The main evaluation or, following that, the life cycle assessment
advantage of a FCV compared to a BEV is a much big- (LCA) comparison. We decided to review efficiency
ger range and quick refilling of the tank. However, the percentages (Table 3) of the available propulsion tech-
necessary H2 filling station infrastructure is available nologies for greater transparency. This way, the wrong
nowhere in the world, not regarding some single filling impression of higher accuracy than available from the
stations in a few city centers allowing regional mobility data, as well as erroneous conclusions, is avoided
of hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles, which must re- while comparing data of ICEV with alternative
turn daily to the same filling station. technologies.
Table 3 Energy efficiency of the propulsion technologies available to the market (in percentages)
Propulsion technology WTT (%) TTW (%) WTW (%) WTW calculated (%)
ICE
Petrol (gasoline) 79a, 86b 16a, 23k 10o, 13a, 12 to 14p, 14q, 20r 13 to 20
a b k a o p a,q
Petrol (gasoline) full electric hybrid 79 , 86 30 , 37 15 , 17 to 22 , 29 24 to 32
Diesel 76c, 82a, 84b 23a, 28k 13o, 16 to 18p, 19a, 25r 18 to 24
d e e o e
LPG (propane + butane) 88 , 93 16 11 , 15 14 to 20
petrol ref. + 6l
CNG (methane) 65 to 86f, 85e 16e 12o, 14e, 21r 10 to 22
m
petrol ref. + 9
FCV
H2 fuel cell (gaseous H2 stored in pressure tanks) 37g, 40c, 53h 50a, 56k 20 to 23p, 22a, 23s, 29q 19 to 30
BEV
Electric car (literature) 73k, 80 to 90n 59 to 80t, 74k
Electric car minimumi 15i 73k 11
i j
Electric car optimum 59 to 85 90n 53 to 77
WTW in the last column calculated from WTT and TTW literature as indicated. WWT, well-to-tank; TTW, tank-to-wheel; WTW, well-to-wheel; LPG, liquefied
petroleum gas; CNG, compressed natural gas; ICE, internal combustion engine; FCV, fuel cell vehicle; BEV, battery electric vehicle. a[7]. bKavalov and Peteves [15].
c
FfE [16]: H2 made by steam reforming from natural gas (methane). dCalculated from Fritsche [17]. eReviewed in [5]. fDepending on the length of the gas pipe,
between 14% and 35% of the energy content can be used up in the chain (calculated for natural gas in the European market in [18]). g[19]: H2 made by
electrolysis from water. hIAE [20]: Electrolysis from water including compression. iCoal mine to bunker 80%, coal to electricity 35%, grid to plug 90%, plug to
battery 60%. jWind energy transmission 97%, [storage power station (water) 70%], grid to plug 90%, plug to battery 97%. kKloes [21]. lA compression optimized
engine can increase efficiency by up to 6% (Heinze T, Saarbrücken THW, personal communication 2011). mIn a single fuel engine, compression ratio can be
optimized to achieve an energy efficiency increase of 9% over the patrol reference EU [22]. nHusain [23]. o[24] (Light duty vehicles with curb weight 1.6 to 1.8 t
evaluated). pReviewed by An and Santini [25]. qPelz N [26]. r[27]. sBossel [28]. tReviewed by Hacker et al. [29].
Inhomogeneous database The available database is enor- In general, tank-to-wheel efficiencies of ICEV are very
mous but should be regarded inhomogeneous and, for low with 10% to 25% because 75% to 90% of the energy
some parts, as questionable. Some studies are based on is lost as heat instead of propelling the car. However,
modeled data (virtual cars), some on laboratory measure- ICEV has been successful on the market for more than a
ments with isolated engines, and some based on unified century due to the very high energy density (up to 20
test schemes about actually driving the car. Some measure- times higher compared to Li-ion batteries) of carbon-
ments were performed on laboratory test stands, others on based fuels available worldwide since over 100 years for
real streets. They are also based on cars with various curb low prices. The electric hybrid ICE concept brought an
weights. Accordingly, there are strongly deviating results: efficiency jump; TTW's of hybrid ICE roughly doubled
Sullivan et al. [30], for example, resumed that, by 2015, compared to that of ICEV without electric assistance
diesel-driven cars will (still) have 14% to 27% less CO2 (Table 3). Toyota, in 1997, introduced this technology to
emission due to a higher TTW efficiency, compared to the market in a large-scale production, followed by
petrol-fuelled cars and based on German certification Honda in 1999 (reviewed in [5]).
data. But in reality, consumers preferred bigger ICEV powered by gaseous hydrocarbons, namely me-
motorization than modeled. A comparison by a German thane, and propane and butane, are similarly inefficient
non-governmental organization revealed that certified like petrol-powered cars. However, if the higher caloric
CO2 emissions of new diesel cars on German streets value is used for achieving higher compression, gas-driven
increased since 2000 and coincided with falling CO2 emis- propulsions can be as efficient as the diesel engine (+6% to
sions of new petrol-fuelled cars at 173 g CO2/km in 2006 9% TTW, see Table 3). Unfortunately, car manufacturers
(reviewed by Helmers [1]). do not utilize the potentials of gaseous propulsions so far.
Altogether, WTW calculations reveal that, during the op-
Standardized driving cycles: Contrast to reality A eration of ICEV, between 68% and 90% of the entire energy
major problem in well-to-wheel efficiency studies is that is wasted (Table 3).
most data are based on artificial test procedures, which
are also different from one region of the world to an- FCV as alternative propulsions Within the two tech-
other. The German Ministry of Transport, Building and nical alternatives available, H2-powered fuel cell vehicles
Urban Development recently demonstrated [31] that the reveal a problem, which is losing 50% to 60% energy each
majority of cars consume around 25% more fuel and during fuel production (here both from hydrogen produc-
thus emit more CO2 than certified. Most of more than tion by steam reforming as well as by water electrolysis)
100 cars investigated are within 40% of excess, while a and during fuel cell operation and driving. Altogether,
few percent of the vehicles in this spot check revealed WTW efficiency of FCV seems to be nearly as low as the
fuel consumption up to 70% higher than certified due to efficiency of ICEV, with 19% to 30% (=70% to 81% energy
the European test scheme [31]. A worldwide unified test loss). However, in terms of CO2 emissions, several authors
scheme is therefore currently under international negoti- see WTW advantages of FCV over ICEV (e.g., [22]); see
ation [31]. If this unified driving cycle includes alterna- below.
tive propulsion technologies, it could serve as a basis to
generate more reliable TTW data in the future. BEV analysis in terms of WTT, TTW, and WTW
efficiency generates a complex picture First, electri-
Internal combustion engine vehicles ICEVs are pow- city production can take place under very different con-
ered by petrol (gasoline), diesel, propane and butane, or me- ditions: When electricity is generated from fossil sources
thane (Table 3). These fossil hydrocarbons may be in an inefficient power plant and loaded with an ineffi-
substituted or exchanged with biofuels like bioethanol, bio- cient charger to the BEV, up to 85% of the energy may
diesel, or biomethane, which is not the subject of this paper. be lost, resulting in a WTW efficiency of only 11% com-
An integrated greenhouse gas (GHG) assessment of the parable to petrol-operated ICEV (Table 3). Actually, in a
process chains of natural gas and industrialized biomethane pre-series BEV, car chargers with only 60% efficiency
is provided by Arnold et al. [32], revealing that GHG emis- have been implemented. Today's most efficient battery
sion data will change in the future due to the development chargers, however, have efficiencies of up to 97%. Today,
of new sources and markets like, e.g., the growing market chargers are mostly implemented in the car, while in the
for liquefied natural gas. WTT data for petrol (gasoline), California BEV of the 1990s, they were partly not inte-
diesel, propane and butane, and methane provisions reveal grated in the cars, complicating the comparability of
that up to 24% of the contained energy is already being con- older WTW numbers.
sumed within the chain. In the exceptional case of methane, Today, WTWs reported for BEV are between 59% and
pumped trough up to 7,000 km from Siberia to Europe, 80%. This high efficiency is due to the fact that only very
there is a WTT loss of up to 35% (Table 3). little energy is wasted in the drivetrain (Table 3).
Altogether, BEV represent the only alternative technol- Due to the German Hydrogen and Fuel-Cell Association
ogy offering an efficiency jump in individual mobility, [36], hydrogen of 700 bars pressure contains 1.3 kWh/L of
consuming up to four times less energy than today's energy (specific gravity 40.2 kg/m3). This way, energy con-
cars. This has been confirmed during measurements on sumption of the B-class fuel cell car can be converted to
a car converted from combustion engine to electric (see 35.9 kWh/100 km or 1.3 MJ/km, respectively. Converted
below). to the curb weight of the electrified Smart (880 kg), only
However, BEV should be primarily and increasingly 0.65 MJ/km would be spent by a FCV of the same weight,
loaded with electricity from renewable sources and must which is about one third more than the electric car con-
be equipped with an efficient charging unit (Table 3). Al- sumes (0.5 MJ/km). This also matches the energy con-
though being much more efficient so far, BEV cannot sumption of a FCV vehicle modeled by Simons and Bauer
cover all mobility needs due to range restrictions, so the [37], revealing 0.68 MJ/km (converted to a vehicle's weight
other technologies (ICE and FCV) are still needed under of 880 kg). Linssen et al. [38] simulated between 0.95 and
sustainability-optimized conditions. 1.57 MJ/km for small and large FCV vehicles (860 to 1,270
kg weight), respectively, which are based on compressed
From efficiency to energy units Consumption of the hydrogen technology.
competing technologies in terms of energy units should A B-class car of today with ICE engine extrapolated to
also be known. Ideally, data should be taken from the same the same weight (1.8 t) would consume 11.6 L/100 km
car as an ICE as well as an electrical version, which is un- (certified fuel consumption taken from manufacturers
fortunately not available on the market. Therefore, in specification + 25% reality supplement, and extrapolated
2011, a Smart car has been converted from petrol to elec- to 1.8 t) equivalent to 3.7 MJ/km, 2.8 times the fuel cell
tric in the laboratory of the authors, revealing realistic data version. The TTW-proportion FCV/ICE (petrol) is 2.7,
(technical specifications see below). This car consumed 5.3 according to the literature (Table 3). In conclusion, en-
L petrol/100 km, as quantified during a test cycle under ergy efficiency of a fuel cell car seems to be not far away
standard road conditions with an original 40-kW engine from the BEV. However, the WTT efficiency of pressur-
prior to the replacement of the propulsion, which can be ized hydrogen is bad since up to 63% energy is lost
converted to 1.67 MJ/km. The test cycle was based on a within the delivery chain (Table 3) This led to criticism
46.8-km route consisting of villages (20%, 50 km/h), auto- about driving with hydrogen as fuel (e.g., [28]). However,
bahn (24%, 100 km/h), and country roads (80 km/h). The under unfavorable conditions, efficiency of electricity
same test cycle was driven before and after electric conver- provision to a BEV can be even worse (Table 3).
sion, both at air temperatures of 15°C to 20°C, without
heating (no A/C available); the car has been weighed each
time. After installing a 25-kW electric engine, the electri- Greenhouse gas emissions of electric cars in operation
fied Smart had better acceleration and consumed 14.5 Battery electric vehicles (BEV) The greenhouse gas
kWh/100 km on the above test cycle, including charge emissions of the BEV can easily be calculated based on its
losses, which are equivalent to 0.5 MJ/km. This number is electricity consumption and following the GHG emission
reflected in literature: Majeau-Bettez et al. [33] based his associated with the local electricity production [1,5]. In the
LCA calculations on a BEV electricity consumption of 0.5 literature, there are plenty of data quantifying greenhouse
MJ/km. Since the weight of the Smart increased by 22.2% gas emissions of electric cars in operation (e.g., [39]).
due to the added Li battery (additional information given The crucial number in this context is the electricity
below), the weight-normalized energy consumption of the consumption of electric cars under street conditions. In
electrified Smart is 0.4 MJ/km. This realistic experiment a review evaluating 21 studies from 1999 to 2009 (18
fairly reveals the fourfold energy efficiency advantage of studies therein from 2007 to 2009), BEV and PHEV con-
electric cars proposed in literature and reviewed in Table 3: sumed a mean of 17.5 kWh/100 km [29]. In contrast, in
ICEV operated with petrol has only 16.5% (13% to 20%) a few studies focused on LCA quantification, a much
TTW energy efficiency, while electric cars today are higher electricity consumption has been supposed: For
believed to achieve 65% (53% to 77%) WTW, which is a example, Helms et al. [40] based their modeling on an
four-times higher energy efficiency (Table 3). electricity consumption of 20.4 kWh/100 km in urban
It is of course more difficult to get street data for FCV. areas, 20.8 kWh/100 km in extra-urban areas, and 24.9
The first realistic hydrogen consumption data of pre-series kWh/100 km on the highway, respectively. Pehnt et al.
cars are reported by car magazines, revealing, e.g., 1.11 kg [41] summarized 21 to 24 kWh/100 km. Held and Bau-
of 700 bar H2/100 km for a Mercedes F-cell B-class car mann [42] based LCA quantifications on electricity con-
(pre-series model) with a curb weight of 1,809 kg [34]. The sumptions of 18.7 kWh/100 km for a mini-class BEV
H2-consumption of a Honda FCX Clarity is only slightly (736 kg curb weight, size of Smart, see below) and 22.9
higher, considering its lower tank pressure [35]. kWh/100 km for a compact-class BEV (specified curb
weight 1,115 kg). In some cases, the assumed electricity For example, Tesla motors claims its 1,230-kg roadster
consumption of a standard BEV seems to be quite high consumes only 11 kWh/100 km [46]. Nissan Leaf is the
since only mid-size cars equipped with heavy batteries second high-volume BEV available on the market and
are taken for calculation (e.g., by Helms et al. [40] based the first series BEV specially developed for electrical driv-
on a BEV with 1,600 kg curb weight). ing. USEPA certifies electricity consumption of the BEV
On the contrary, we assume that, in the next few years, Nissan Leaf (curb weight 1,525 kg [44]) as 19.9 kWh/100
electric cars will be mostly small or mid-size cars (see km in the city and 23.0 kWh/100 km on the highway, re-
above). An e-conversion project, performed in the la- spectively [47]. Unlike the European driving cycles, EPA
boratory of the authors in 2011, may illustrate weight certifications are claimed to be more realistic since they
data exemplarily: A Smart built in the year 2000 has contain ‘faster speeds and acceleration, air conditioner
been e-converted from combustion engine to an electric use, and colder outside temperatures than usual until
car. A 25-kW electric engine and a 14-kWh LiFePO4 2008’ [47]. Nissan itself specifies electricity consumption
battery were installed, allowing a range of up to 120 km. of its Leaf as 17.3 kWh/100 km [44]. A Mercedes A-class
The curb weight grew by 161 kg to 880 kg, which is little pre-series electric car has been tested, resulting in 19
more than half of the car weight assumed by Helms kWh/100 km [48]. In conclusion, an electricity con-
et al. [40]. A Mitsubishi I-MiEV weighs 1,110 kg and is sumption of up to 20 kWh/100 km should be realistic
equipped with a 16-kWh Li-ion battery [43]. The Nissan for a European mid-size car moved in urban areas or
Leaf, however, the first high-volume mid-size electric car, extra-urban at limited speeds, which is the favorite use
weighs 1,525 kg and operates a 24-kWh lithium battery of electric cars. The 20 kWh/100 km electricity con-
[44]. sumption has also been confirmed by a scientific review
Furthermore, BEV electricity consumption data under- process (personal communication, [HJ Althaus, 2011]).
lying LCA modeling and indicating, e.g., a yearly CO2 Accordingly, we can assume a realistic electricity con-
emission of a car fleet are necessarily more or less theoret- sumption of 15 to 20 kWh/100 km for urban and extra-
ical today (e.g., [8]). Here again, consumption data derived urban traffic. European small-size cars (like Smart or I-
from certified driving cycles are simulating much lower MiEV) will be located in the lower end, while European
fossil fuel consumptions for ICEV than realistic and, on mid-size cars (like Nissan Leaf ) will be found in the
the contrary, probably higher than realistic for BEV, as higher end of this range. Large-size BEV and BEV driven
established in the following. We suggest that street condi- at higher speeds (autobahn) can be expected to consume
tion fuel consumption should be compared for both BEV more than 20 kWh/100 km. However, in the forthcom-
and ICEV, including charging losses for BEV of course. ing years, large-size BEV will probably not be the domin-
Only a few real-life electricity consumption data are avail- ant application within the sector of electric cars.
able so far, which usually cannot be found in scientific lit- The lower the carbon impact accompanying the electri-
erature. The Smart Fortwo converted to an electric car in city production in a country, the lower is the greenhouse
the laboratory of the authors consumes 14.5 kWh/100 km gas emissions of the BEV in operation. However, countries
on the above described test cycle. A Mitsubishi i-MiEV, such as Australia, China, India, Poland, and South Africa
the first high-volume electric car on the market, consumes produce between 68% and 94% of their electricity by com-
16.94 kWh/100 km on the street [45]. As expected from bustion of coal [50]. Coal represents 78% of China's electri-
an electric car, consumption is lowest inside the city, city generation [51], resulting in 743 g CO2/kWh (IEA,
where ICEV conversely exhibit highest fuel consumptions. number for 2009). According to Yan and Crookes [51],
The Mitsubishi I-MiEV demonstrated the following elec- Chinese coal-based electricity production generates CO2
tricity consumption data during ADAC-testing: 11.3 kWh/ emissions in the range of 194 to 215 g/km operating a
100 km (urban), 15.0 kWh/100 km (extra-urban), and 24.6 BEV, which is much higher compared to the 84 to 113 g/
kWh/100 km on the autobahn at higher speed, respectively km of BEV operated in Germany under grid conditions
[45]. This highlights again the need for a critical data (563 g CO2/kWh [52, number for 2010]) and for BEV con-
evaluation: BEV will replace ICEV mainly in the local suming 15 to 20 kWh/100 km.
urban area or within local regional traffic, generating pos- However, operating a BEV in China anyhow can lead to
sibly higher CO2 advantages than seen in the data derived significant GHG savings if compared to ICEV operated
from standard cycle consumption of BEV and ICEV. Inter- with Chinese coal-to-liquid (CtL) production fuel. For CtL
estingly, Mitsubishi publishes 13.5 kWh/100 km due to of this kind, the carbon emissions are 717 to 787 g CO2/
the ECE R101 cycle [43], which confirms the independent km [51].
test results (cited above) for urban and extra-urban
consumption. Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles PHEV has an electricity
On the other hand, electricity consumption specified consumption quite similar to BEV as long as they drive
by manufacturers of BEV can be too low to be realistic. electric. Weight and cost savings due to a smaller battery
are compensated by an additional combustion engine (also based on natural gas as the hydrogen resource and includ-
called range extender). Hacker et al. [29] reviewed eight ing pressurization and transport. CO2 emission of German
studies on PHEV revealing a mean electricity consumption H2 production would result in 96 g/MJ, while a Norwegian
of 17.4 kWh/100 km. However, depending on the size of production would result in 83 g/MJ, respectively [38]. FCV
the battery and concept of the individual car, the electric energy consumption between 0.65 for small FCV (car
range of PHEV is smaller than the range of BEV: The first weights see above) and 1.57 MJ/km for large FCV, respect-
high-volume PHEV, the GM Volt/Opel Ampera, has a 40- ively [38], results in 54 to 151 g CO2/km. Eberhard and
to 80-km range according to its carmaker [53], while the Tarpenning [46] published a consumption of 152 g CO2/
Toyota Prius plug-in (2012) will have an electrical range of km for the Honda FCX operated in the USA. This order of
around 20 km only. Electricity consumption in electrical magnitude was also confirmed by Höhlein and Grube [59],
mode and fuel consumption during operation of the com- who also concluded that, for H2 generated by electrolysis
bustion engine are known only from publications of the and powered by wind electricity, CO2 supply path costs
motor press and represent preliminary results allowing a can be lower than 25 g/km. Simons and Bauer [37] calcu-
rough estimation of their GHG emissions in operation: lated CO2-equivalent costs of around 150 g CO2/km
Auto Motor Sport [54] reported 23.5 kWh/100 km in the (steam methane reforming from natural gas), 105 g CO2/
electrical mode as well as 6.7 L petrol/100 km in the ICE km (biomass in a steam methane reforming process of
modus for the Opel Ampera. AutoBild [55] reported 22.6 gasified wood), 320 g CO2/km (H2 electrolysis powered
kWh/100 km in the electrical modus versus 7.7 L petrol/ with the European grid electricity), or 80 g CO2/km (H2
100 km. A GHG impact compilation for a 100-km driving electrolysis powered with the Swiss grid electricity), re-
cycle of the Opel Ampera (60 km electrical range plus 40 spectively. The modeling of Simons and Bauer [37] is
km of driving with combustion engine, no charging under- based on a car weight of 1,434 kg. Wu et al. [60] accounted
way) results in 159 g CO2/km based on the following between 30 and 230 g CO2/km (H2 produced with wind
assumptions: 563 g CO2/kWh for German electricity energy vs. that from North American natural gas) for the
(number for 2010 [52]), 2,310 g CO2 due to the combustion operation of fuel cell hybrid vehicles. For a Chinese FCV,
of 1 L petrol [5], and supply chain emissions of 506 g CO2/ 146 g CO2/km is supposed [51]. While the operational
L petrol (calculated from Öko-Institut [56]). Carmaker ecoefficiency of BEV is very much dependent on the elec-
Opel, however, specifies a value of 27 g CO2/km [53]. tricity source, the CO2 impact of FCV is strongly
A Toyota Prius plug-in consumes 3.4 L petrol/100 km in dependent on energy and hydrogen resources used for H2
ICE mode according to an ADAC test [57] and 21.8 kWh/ production.
100 km in the electrical mode [58], respectively. The journal Assuming a supply chain resulting in 100 g CO2/km
AutoBild [58] measured 3.8 L petrol/100 km in ICE mode. emissions over 100,000 km, some 10 t of CO2 is pro-
Regarding an electrical range of 20 km, this results in an duced. This would be very similar to a Toyota Prius
emission of 106 g CO2/km (calculated for 100 km). Car- plug-in PHEV and only 22% more than the operational
maker Toyota specifies 59 g CO2/km due to ADAC [57]. life cycle emissions of the electric Smart (see below),
Over a 100,000-km lifetime (this number chosen in which is smaller and lighter than a FCV car.
order to ensure comparability with LCA calculations
shown below), an Opel Ampera would sum up 15.9 t Life cycle assessment of electric cars
CO2, while a Toyota Prius plug-in comes to 10.6 t of In order to quantify the LCA of electromobility, the
CO2, respectively, both charged under German mean impacts of electric vehicle production, maintenance and
electricity grid conditions. However, these lifetime bal- disposal on the one hand, and the impacts of operation in-
ances for PHEV operation are based on the assumption cluding fuel provision on the other hand are quantified
that the battery is completely discharged every time and [61]. Impact of road construction, maintenance, and dis-
every trip continues with petrol. In reality, operational posal are neglected here since there are no differences be-
lifetime carbon footprints vary strongly with respect to tween ICEV and BEV. LCA is usually calculated separately
individual use of the cars. for the glider (or platform = vehicles without engine, trans-
These preliminary findings on the first two reality mission, fuel system, or internal combustion components
PHEV exhibit that efficiency and ecoimpact of PHEV will of any kind), the drivetrain (electric engine and associated
vary very much depending on the technical conception, compounds, transmission, and charging infrastructure), the
which is expected to diversify. Moreover, it depends on battery production, and the maintenance and end-of-life
the average distances traveled in daily use where the two treatment, respectively [61]. Other studies also distinguish
propulsion modes are mixed together. subparts like inverters/electronics, the generator, and other
components [42].
Fuel cell cars Linssen et al. [38] have quantified the The overall environmental impact according to the
CO2-equivalents of different supply paths of hydrogen international standard ISO EN 14040 and 14044 [62]
includes quantification of, e.g., the abiotic depletion po- battery [66]. In conclusion, battery sizes required for
tential, the non-renewable cumulative energy demand BEV operation seem to be partly overestimated in the lit-
[61], the acidification potential [42] and, of course, the erature so far (see also Table 5).
global warming potential as CO2-equivalents. However, Not surprisingly, environmental costs of battery pro-
the global warming potentials of BEV production and duction and usage are subject to intensive scientific
use are discussed controversially in science and public, discussion, revealing corresponding CO2-equivalent
while the other criterions are found in the scientific de- emissions of a great variety (Table 4). However, these
bate only. We like to point out some of the critical variations are only to a little extent due to the battery
details within the discussion and add preliminary data chemistry and, least of all, due to the metal lithium since
from a used car converted from ICE to electric. a Li-ion battery contains only about 1% lithium or 80 g
Li per kWh energy content [68]. Also, the Li purifying
Environmental burden of the Li-ion battery production process is not energy-intensive [33], nor is Li related to a
There are only a few complete LCA studies available pre- comparably high depletion of resources, according to
senting detailed inventories [33]. Only two of them Althaus et al. [68]. The LiFePO4 battery used in the
[33,61] are published together with comprehensive input Smart conversion project performed by the authors con-
data and model description fully available on the internet tains 3.4% Li. Besides the Li, the LiFePO4 battery (manu-
upon title research. Some further studies are published facturer: Calb, China) has a content of 42% Fe, 16% P,
only with limited input data and are also reviewed in the 5% graphite, 3% C, 6% Al, and 10% Cu, respectively
following (Table 4). (MSDS accreditation certificate, 2009). The components
Notter et al. [61] conclude that Li-ion battery plays of the highest relevance within the whole battery LCA
only a minor role (between 5% and 15%) regarding the are the anode and cathode materials graphite, copper,
overall environmental burden of E-mobility, independent and aluminum [61,68]. Majeau-Bettez et al. [33], how-
from the impact assessment method used. In contrast, ever, identified battery and components manufacturing,
Held and Baumann [42] calculated a global warming po- as well as the positive electrode paste, as being the most
tential (GWP) of the battery production in the order of 5 GWP-intensive components.
to 10 t CO2-eq, dominating the GWP LCA of mini- and Notter et al. [61] primarily evaluated the environmen-
compact-class BEV propelled with renewable electricity tal burden of a LiMn2O4 battery and also found that two
and, furthermore, accompanied by high and dominating other of the often used active materials exhibit only a
acidification potential of 40 to 80 kg SO2-eq for the small increase of 12.8% (Li-Mn-Ni-Co-O2) and a de-
whole battery. However, Held and Baumann [42] sup- crease of 1.9% (LiFeO4), respectively, in environmental
posed that mini- and compact-class BEV should have burden (EI99H/A). This is confirmed by Majeau-Bettez
batteries of 20- to 40-kWh capacities. In contrast, the et al. [33], quantifying only a 25% difference in the GWP
authors' converted Smart has an electrical range of more during the production of the two different materials
than 100 km with a 14-kWh Li-ion battery, sufficient for investigated (Table 4). Instead of the Li battery chemis-
regional mobility. Compact-class BEV Nissan Leaf is said try, methodical differences in LCA quantification seem
to have a cruising radius of 175 km with a 24-kWh to cause data deviations [49]: While the ‘bottom-up’
Table 4 CO2-equivalent emissions due to the Li-ion battery production

Source CO2-equivalents kg/kWh Battery chemistry Remarks
battery investigated
Notter et al. 2010, [61] Althaus 2011 52 LiMn2O4 Bottom-up LCA approach (Althaus 2011)
Ishihara et al. 2002 [63] 75 Li-Ni-Co and Li-Mn Bottom-up LCA approach (Althaus 2011)
Zackrisson et al. 2010 [64] 166 LiFePO4 Top-down modeling from producers (Althaus
2011)
Frischknecht 2011 [65] 134 Not specified Top-down modeling from producers (Althaus
2011)
Majeau-Bettez et al. 2011 [33] 250 LiFePO4 Industry data considered (remark by Majeau-
Bettez)
200 LiFe0.4CO0.2Mn0.4O0.2
Data range presented by five different (66 to 291)a diverse -
groups on the 43rd discussion forum on
LCA, Zurich, 2011 (reviewed by
Frischknecht and Flury 2011) [67]
a
Recalculation from original kg CO2-equivalent/kg battery data according to measurements of the LiFePO4 battery installed into the Smart in the laboratory of the
authors (161 kg of weight, 14-kWh capacity), which reproduces well the numbers reported in detail by Notter et al. [61] and Zackrisson et al (2010) [64].
Table 5 Characteristics of electric cars (compact class) today in comparison with the converted Smart
Held and Held Lambrecht Frisch- Althaus Freire This study
Baumann 2011 knecht
New Smart Converted Smart
Car weight (kg) 1,037 1,670 N.a. 1,632 1,880 1,531 880 880
Lifetime car (km) 171,600 171,600 150,000 150,000 150,000 200,000 100,000 100,000
Battery weight (kg) 200a 400 250 312 400 329 160 160
Lifetime battery (km) 114,400 114,400 100,000 75,000 150,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
Electricity consumption (kWh/100 km) 18.7 22.9 22 20 20 18.8 14.5 14.5
Electricity mix DE DE DE CH CH PT DE DE
Climate change impact (g CO2-eq/km) (170)a 240 225 150 95 165 140 108
N.a = not available, DE = Germany, CH = Switzerland, PT = Portugal.
Characteristics of electric cars (compact class) today and climate change impacts of driving 1 km (data from Held, Lambrecht, Frischknecht, Althaus and Freire
presented on a conference 2011 and taken from Frischknecht and Flury [67]) in comparison with the converted Smart presented in this study. aCalculated from
data reported by Held and Baumann [42].
method of, e.g., Notter, Althaus, and Ishihara leads to electric engine plus electric controller system) rather
lower CO2-equivalent emissions, a ‘top-down’ approach than, for a BEV, the footprint of battery production. CO2
(Zackrisson and Frischknecht) seems to generate higher emission during operation of the car is quantified con-
results (Table 4). In addition to the different approaches sidering the consumed carbon-based fuel (ICEV) or in-
to quantify costs of Li battery production, the application direct CO2 emission during electricity production (BEV).
scenario has to be defined, which is a theoretical attempt Even if a detailed LCA modeling of an individual car is
since there is no widespread use of electric cars yet in not available for all its technical parts, a simplified life
everyday life: What is the annual distance traveled with cycle assessment can be performed with comparative cal-
an electric car? How many years will an electric car be in culations based on LCA models published in detail: As
operation? How long does a battery in a car last? The lat- an example, lifetime carbon footprints were estimated
ter depends on battery chemistry, its cycle strength, the here according to the conversion of a used Smart in the
quality of production, and pattern of everyday use. Also laboratory of the authors (Figure 2). The LCA for the
important is how charging is performed in everyday life - glider, drivetrain, and battery of the Smart were recalcu-
quick (at higher currents) or slow - and to which lated based on the data by Notter et al. [61]. Measured
temperature fluctuations the battery will be exposed. Sta- weights of the Smart's glider, the gearbox (kept), the new
tistically usable data are not expected before BEV has electric motor, the battery as well as the controller, and
been brought on the streets for routine use. further accessory parts were converted relative to the
In conclusion, LCA database, so far, for Li-ion battery carbon footprint data by Notter et al. [61]. The detailed
production still seems to be in substantial movement. material composition of the glider was not considered in
This is even more the case when electricity sources this assessment. However, unlike the LCA data published
change from fossil to renewable. Tao et al. [69] claim so far, this estimation is not based on modeled cars but
that CO2 emissions from electricity consumption during on a used car purchased on the market and then con-
Li-ion battery production can be reduced by 95% to 98% verted to electric. Also, different to most of the published
if the production site is shifted from China/Europe to data, petrol and electricity consumptions of the same car
Iceland with its geothermal energy resources. Electricity were measured prior to and after the technical conver-
production in Iceland causes a footprint of 18 to 23.5 g sion: The Smart has been driven along the same route
CO2/kWh only [69]. and the same street conditions before and after electric
conversion.
CO2-life cycle impact of the converted Smart (BEV vs. Real street data were chosen to evaluate the energy
ICEV) Carbon footprint and environmental impact consumption. The ICEV Smart belongs to cars with
quantification of standard automobile parts can be some of the highest deviations between certified and
expected to generate less volatile data than the Li-ion reality fuel consumption (up to 60% [1]). We chose a
battery. The glider, a car minus motor, gearbox, and fuel mileage of 100,000 km on the assumption that the first
equipment, is taken as a useful basis for modeling [61]. battery will be kept within this range. Also, fossil-fuelled
A full LCA of automobile use includes an impact quanti- Smarts, on the other hand, can be expected to drive be-
fication of the glider's production, the manufacturing of tween 60,000 and 120,000 km with the first engine
propulsion components (in an ICEV - the combustion according to our knowledge, which allows a comparison
engine, gearbox, and fuelling system; in a BEV - the between the ICEV and the electric version over 100,000
t CO2-eq battery
20
20 0.6 drivetrain
18 2.9 glider
16 14 operation
14 0.9
12 1.7
10 2.9
8 16.1 6
6 0.9
4 8.2 1.7 3
0.9
2 2.9 1.7
0 0.4 0.4
SMART petrol electric SMART electric SMART converted electric
grid mix renew mix SMART renew mix
Figure 2 CO2 life cycle assessment based on a converted Smart car. Preliminary and simplified CO2 life cycle assessment based on data
obtained during a conversion of a used Smart from an ICEV to a BEV. Calculation conditions: 100,000 km lifetime, grid electricity 563 g CO2/kWh
(German Federal Environmental Agency, number for 2010), and renewable electricity mix 30 g CO2/kWh (reviewed in [5]). Smart I model, petrol-
fuelled, built in the year 2000 (also calculated as being ‘new’), and purchased in 2011 with 106,000 km driven. ICE engine, tank components, and
exhaust system were removed, gearbox was kept. Fuel chain emissions of 2.88 t (included in 16.1 t operation emissions) calculated according to
Öko-Institut [56] for petrol provision. CO2 impacts of the battery, drivetrain, and glider production calculated according to Notter et al. [61]. Weight
of the glider, 597 kg. Cutoff allocation rule applied for the glider in column 4 (converted Smart). Electric engine including gearbox and all
accessories weigh 122 kg; battery weight is 161 kg. Further information is provided in the text.
km. Operation emissions are both dominating the CO2 rule); this way halved again the life cycle CO2 emissions
life cycle of the fossil fuel-propelled Smart (column 1, and ended up with 2.8 t (from column 3 to column 4 in
Figure 2) as well as an electric Smart (column 2, Figure 2) Figure 2). Altogether, life cycle CO2 emissions when driv-
if charged with German mean grid electricity. This is in ing a Smart have been reduced by 86% due to this model
accordance with the findings of Helms et al. [40] as well (Figure 2, from the first to the last column). Life cycle
as Notter et al. [61]. Other studies report higher BEV CO2 emissions for the new electric Smart (first column in
CO2 life cycle impacts during operation when charged Figure 2) and, not shown in Figure 2, that of a converted
with grid mix, e.g. Helms et al. [40] with approximately used Smart propelled with German electricity mix (10.8 t
20 t (mid-size car) and Held and Baumann [42] also with in lifetime) are selected to calculate the overall g CO2/km
approximately 20 t (mini-class), however recalculated for impacts in Table 5.
150,000 to 171,600 km of operation. Other differences Other findings in Table 5 need to be commented: Elec-
will partly be due to a higher battery and car weight tric Smart has the lowest climate change impact, which
(Table 5). However, we calculated the direct CO2 emis- was expected since it is the smallest car. It confirms a find-
sions due to fuel combustion (including fuel chain emis- ing already published [49]: The smaller the BEV, the more
sions) as well as indirect CO2 emissions due to ecoefficient it is. This is also known from ICEV; however, it
consumption of the German grid electricity (for details, is more pronounced within BEV due to the high battery
see explanatory notes in Figure 2). Calculation of CO2- weight.
equivalents based on ecoinvent 2.2 database adds up to The data published by Althaus and Frischknecht
9.4 t instead of 8.2 t for the operation phase of the elec- (Table 5) seem to be in compliance with the Smart num-
tric Smart (column 2 in Figure 2). bers. However, Althaus and Frischknecht modeled BEV
twice the Smart's weight and even heavier. On the other
Literature comparison of the Smart e-conversion hand, they based their life cycle emissions evaluation on
carbon footprint According to our simplified LCA model, Swiss electricity consumption. Swiss electricity GHG in-
life cycle CO2 emissions could be reduced by 30% when tensity is around 140 g CO2-eq/kWh (number for 2005
switching from the petrol version to a new electric Smart [37]), while in Germany, 563 g CO2/kWh (number for
(Figure 2). Fuelling the electric Smart with renewable elec- 2010, see above) must be taken into account. Lambrecht,
tricity mix causes an additional 55% reduction of life cycle Held as well as Held and Baumann [42] published larger
CO2 emissions (second and third column in Figure 2). climate change impacts. This is evident particularly for
However, we have chosen an already driven Smart with data extracted from Held and Baumann [42] based on a
combustion engine over 100,000 km and converted it, so mini-class car quite comparable to the Smart. Since the
we can omit expenditure for the glider production (cutoff carbon footprint we calculated for the Smart and Held
and Baumann [42] calculated for a mini-class car impact criterions resource damage and photochemical
(around 3 t CO2) for the platform (glider) is nearly the oxidation potential [49]. Also, Held and Baumann [42]
same, the deviation is due to a higher electricity con- found out about a distinct disadvantage of BEV in the
sumption of 18.7 kWh/100 km assumed by Held and acidification potential. This is due to the sulfur emissions
Baumann [42]. Also, more than 6 t CO2 was modeled by during the smelting of metals like Cu and Ni and may
Held and Baumann [42] for production and maintenance also be due to associated SO2 emissions when compo-
of the battery, which is six times more than we assumed nents are produced in countries like China, where elec-
based on the data by Notter et al. [61]. tricity production is dominated by coal-fired power
Charging the Smart with electricity of renewable origin plants. However, there are differences within the batter-
(30 g CO2/kWh), however, would considerably decrease ies: LiFePO4 batteries have a lower acidification potential
the overall climate change impact; the climate change since they contain no nickel [71].
impact of a new electric Smart would be more than Helms et al. [40] did not report elevated acidifying emis-
halved on 63 g CO2/km, and the impact of the converted sions accompanying the BEV production but emphasized
Smart is down to 30 g CO2/km, each calculated for the SO2 emissions during BEV operation caused by electri-
100,000 km of operation (not shown in Table 5). city production from coal. This was confirmed by Helmers
[1], who calculated the SO2 emissions accompanying the
Life cycle impact of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles power usage of a BEV in Germany based on year 2006 data,
Samaras and Meisterling [70] published ICEV life cycle revealing up to tenfold higher indirect SO2 emissions of a
CO2-equivalent costs in the order of 270 g/km and for BEV compared to ICEV direct SO2 emissions. Indirect BEV
HEV of 180 to 190 g/km, respectively. Interestingly, with emissions of NOx and fine dust according to electricity pro-
increasing the battery size of PHEV, CO2-equivalents de- duction, however, were smaller than direct ICEV emissions
crease only little in the order of a few grams per kilo- [1]. Majeau-Bettez et al. [33] quantified the LCA emissions
meter [70]. Similarly, Helms et al. [40] reported life cycle of battery production and use, reporting 14 to 19 g CO2-
CO2-equivalent emissions for PHEV in the order of 150 eq/km (battery only) for two Li-ion batteries (specified in
g/km, operated with German average electricity (150,000 Table 4). They quantified a lot of additional impact categor-
km life cycle). Their data revealed advantages for BEV ies (freshwater and terrestrial ecotoxicity, freshwater eu-
over PHEV only in combination with wind power [40]. trophication, marine ecotoxicity, metal depletion, ozone
Due to high battery production costs assumed, Held and depletion, and particulate matter formation) to those men-
Baumann [42] found advantages of PHEV over BEV in tioned above and concluded that Li-ion batteries are envir-
the criterions GWP and acidification potential (SO2- onmentally favorable compared to the NiMH battery [33].
equivalent), with the latter not being confirmed by
Helms et al. [40]. Also, Althaus [49] stated that ‘electric Conclusions
vehicles with sufficient battery capacity for normal use The electric car seems to be a suitable instrument and a
and a range extender for special use perform better than sustaining measure towards a more sustainable mobility
electric vehicles with larger batteries’. future since it is four times more energy efficient com-
pared to ICEV. Therefore, it is seen as a milestone to-
Life cycle impact categories other than global warming wards a ‘Great Transformation’ [4]. The TTW efficiency
potential Life cycle categories further than GWP imple- advantage of BEV over ICEV, together with the efficiency
mented in LCA reports on electric cars published so far jump by Li-ion batteries, enable the electrification of the
are abiotic depletion potential and non-renewable cumu- automobile as long as it is moved in regional ranges of
lative energy demand. Notter et al. [61] aggregated the up to 100 km per day. However, WTW efficiency of elec-
three categories by the Ecoindicator 99 method, conclud- tric cars can reach exemplary figures only when electri-
ing that the environmental burden of BEV is significantly city is provided by very efficient power plants and
lower compared to ICEV. Aggregation to Ecoindicator infrastructure, best with renewable energy production.
99 method revealed an environmental impact of BEV Also, electric cars should be incorporated into a variety
around 37% below that of ICEV. Althaus [49], however, of modern mobility concepts (e.g., [72]).
pointed out additionally that BEV charged with electri- Energy efficiency of an FCV propelled with hydrogen
city with a significant portion of nuclear energy will be is only slightly lower compared to BEV; however, a lot of
associated with a backpack of nuclear waste production. energy is lost during production and provision of com-
Also, he identified disadvantages of BEV compared to pressed H2 even in the case of water electrolysis powered
ICEV in the land use category and, particularly notice- with renewable electricity. Also, hydrogen filling station
able, in the human toxicity potential category, both due infrastructure is missing and would be very expensive to
to the production of the lithium battery. On the other build up, different to the charging infrastructure needed
hand, there are advantages of BEV over ICEV in the for electric cars.
Life cycle assessment of electric car mobility according conversion of the used Smart. EH corrected and approved the final
to the literature already available is complex. Most LCA manuscript.
data deal with the global warming potential. Since CO2- Received: 6 December 2011 Accepted: 26 April 2012
equivalents emission during the operation is dominating Published: 26 April 2012
the LCA in total, an electric car can already have ecoeffi-
References
ciency advantages when charged with grid electricity (500 1. Helmers E: Bewertung der Umwelteffizienz moderner Autoantriebe – auf
to 600 g CO2/kWh presumed). However, charging the dem Weg vom Diesel-PKW-Boom zu Elektroautos. Umweltwiss Schadst
electric car with renewable electricity (30 g CO2/kWh) Forsch. 2010, 22:564–578.
2. Angerer G, Marscheider-Weidemann F, Wendl M, Wietschel M: Lithium for
improves its LCA performance significantly. Ecoimpact of future technologies - demand and supply with special emphasis on
smaller BEV is also much better according to the high electric vehicles (in German):http://www.elektromobilitaet.fraunhofer.de/
ecoimpact of the battery, which must increase parallel to Images/.
3. WHO: Air quality and health.:http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/
the size of the car. Some LCA studies published so far fs313/en/index.html.
modeled quite heavy BEV, which are additionally assumed 4. German advisory council on global change (WBGU): World in transition: A
to drive periodically at higher speeds, both inefficient for a social contract for sustainability.:http://www.wbgu.de/fileadmin/templates/
dateien/veroeffentlichungen/hauptgutachten/jg2011/wbgu_jg2011_en.pdf.
BEV. In contrast, a small BEV like the electrified Smart 5. Helmers E: Bitte wenden Sie jetzt – das Auto der Zukunft. Weinheim: Wiley
presented here and moved locally as well as regionally only VCH; 2009:204.
can have the most beneficial CO2-impact. During an e- 6. UNEP: Hybrid electric vehicles. An overview of current technology and its
application in developing and transitional countries.:http://www.unep.
conversion of a used car, as shown with the Smart, life org/transport/pcfv/PDF/HEV_Report.pdf.
cycle CO2 emissions can be reduced by more than 80% 7. Halderman JD, Martin T: Hybrid and Alternative fuel vehicles. New Jersey:
compared to that known from ICEV. However, this is a Pearson Prentice Hall; 2008:448.
8. Nemry F, Brons M: Plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles. http://ftp.jrc.es/
first estimation under optimistic assumptions (e.g., battery EURdoc/JRC58748_TN.pdf.
lifetime), which is planned to be critically reviewed in a 9. Larminie J, Lowry J: Electric vehicle technology explained. Chichester: John
more detailed model later. Wiley & Sons; 2003:303.
10. Angerer G, Erdmann L, Marscheider-Weidemann F, Scharp M, Lüllmann A,
Life cycle impact of BEV in categories other than the Handke V, Marwede M: Raw materials for future technologies (in German).
global warming potential reveals a complex picture, al- http://www.isi.fraunhofer.de/isi-de/n/download/publikationen/
though BEV demonstrates advantages over ICEV in most Schlussbericht_lang_20090515_final.pdf.
11. Podewils C: Power for good times (in German). Photon 2010, 2010:36–46.
categories. Althaus [49] even concludes that ‘carbon foot- 12. Amirault J, Chien J, Garg S, Gibbons D, Ross B, Tang M, Xing J, Sidhu I, Kaminsky
print is not sufficient as environmental performance in- P, Tenderich B: The electric vehicle battery landscape: opportunities and
dicator’ here. One disadvantage of BEV is the challenges. http://cet.berkeley.edu/dl/BatteryBrief_final.pdf.
13. Gerschler B, Sauer DU: Batterien für Elektrofahrzeuge – Stand und
acidification potential associated with the smelting pro- Ausblick. Presentation, Berliner Energietage 2010.
cesses of Cu, Ni, and Co since a lot of Cu and, in some 14. Kloess M: The role of plug-in-hybrids as bridging technology towards
battery types, Ni and Co also are essential elements of pure electric cars: an economic assessment. http://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/
PubDat_191393.pdf.
electrical components. Additionally, there are acidifying 15. Kavalov B, Peteves SD: Impacts of the increasing automotive Diesel
emissions of coal-fired power plants depending on the consumption in the EU. http://www.eirc-foundation.eu/Publications/
local value of this type of power production. However, to Energy/EUR%2021378%20EN.pdf.
16. Forschungsstelle für Energiewirtschaft: Energieeffizienz alternativer
what extent the local nearly zero-emission advantage of Kraftstoffe aus Biomasse und Erdgas im Vergleich mit konventionellen
electric cars is incorporated into LCA models is still a Kraftstoffen. http://www.wiba.de/download/wiba_p6.pdf.
question. Toxic emissions like NOx and fine dust are 17. Fritsche UR: Endenergiebezogene Gesamtemissionen für Treibhausgase
aus fossilen Energieträgern unter Einbeziehung der
today shifted to power plants through the use of BEV Bereitstellungsketten. Kurzbericht im Auftrag des Bundesverbands der
(quantified in [1]), where it is easier to limit and control deutschen Gas- und Wasserwirtschaft e.V. Darmstadt: Öko-Institut 2007, :14.
them. The BEV advantage of a much lower noise emis- 18. European Union: Well-to-Wheels analysis of future fuels and associated
automotive powertrains in the European context. http://www.lowcvp.org.
sion, for example, is not appreciated so far (a guideline is uk/assets/presentations/CONCAWE_WTW_CNG_preliminary_Sept_03.pdf.
in preparation). 19. Nylund NO, Laurikko J, Ikonen M: Pathways for natural gas into advanced
vehicles. Part A: technology and fuels for new generation vehicles. http://
Competing interests www.bctia.org/files/PDF/transportation/Natural_Gas_for_Advanced_Vehicles_-
The authors declare that they have no competing interests. _2003.pdf.
20. International Energy Agency: Hydrogen production and distribution. IEA
Acknowledgements Energy Technology Essentials 2007, 5:1–4.
The authors like to thank Katharina Schowalter, Rüdiger Hild and Bernd Fuss 21. Kloess M: The road towards electric mobility – an energy economic view
for data provision and Viola Helmers for the linguistic comments on the on hybrid- and electric vehicle. http://publik.tuwien.ac.at/files/
manuscript. We also appreciate the advice by M. Gauch and particularly G. PubDat_183277.pdf.
Majeau-Bettez. 22. EU: Well to wheel analysis of future automotive fuels and powertrains in
the eurpopean context. http://www.co2star.eu/publications/
Authors' contribution Well_to_Tank_Report_EU.pdf.
EH carried out the whole manuscript despite of the Technology section, 23. Husain I: Electric and hybrid vehicles – design fundamentals. 2nd edition. Boca
which was carried out by both authors. PM carried out the electric Raton: CRC press; 2011. 490 pp.
24. Simpson A: Full-Cycle assessment of alternative fuels for light-duty road 54. Auto Motor Sport: 14.6.2011.
vehicles in Australia. http://www.autospeed.com.au/static/downloads/articles/ 55. AutoBild. 8.7.2011.
110155_UPDATED_Full-Cycle_Assessment_of_Alternative_Fuels_for_Light- 56. Öko-Institut: Endenergiebezogene Gesamtemissionen für Treibhausgase aus
Duty_Road_Vehicles_in_Australia.pdf. fossilen Energieträgern unter Einbeziehung der Bereitstellungsketten.
25. An F, Santini D: Assessing tank-to-wheel efficiencies of advanced Darmstadt; 2007:14.
technology vehicles. http://cta.ornl.gov/TRBenergy/trb_documents/ 57. www.adac.de. 11/2011.
an_assessing_tank.pdf. 58. AutoBild. 10.6.2011.
26. Pelz N: Alternative Kraftstoffe für Kraftfahrzeuge und ihre Möglichkeit zur 59. Höhlein B, Grube T: Kosten einer potenziellen Wasserstoffnutzung für
CO2-Einsparung. In Im Spannungsfeld zwischen CO2-Einsparung und E-Mobilität mit Brennstoffzellenantrieben. Energiewirtschaftliche
Abgasemissionsabsenkung. Renningen: Expert-Verlag; 2008:260. Tagesfragen 2011, 61(6):62–66.
27. Steiger W: In Synthetic fuels – key for future power trains. In Which fuels for 60. Wu Y, Wang MQ, Sharer PB, Rousseau A: Well-to-wheels results of energy
low CO2 engines. Edited by Pierre D. Paris: Technip; 2004:233. use, greenhouse gas emissions and criteria air pollutant emissions of
28. Bossel U: Does a hydrogen economy make sense? Proc IEEE 2006, selected vehicle/fuel systems. SAE Transactions 2007, 115:210–222.
95(10):1826–1837. 61. Notter DA, Gauch M, Widmer R, Wäger P, Stamp A, Zah R: H-J Althaus:
29. Hacker F, Harthan R, Matthes F, Zimmer W: Environmental impacts and Contribution of Li-ion Batteries to the Environmental Impact of electric
impact on the electricity market of a large scale introduction of electric vehicles. Environ Sci Tech 2010, 44:6550–6556.
cars in Europe. http://acm.eionet.europa.eu/docs/ 62. Klöpffer W, Grahl B: Ökobilanz (LCA). Weinheim: Wiley-VCH; 2009. 426 pp.
ETCACC_TP_2009_4_electromobility.pdf. 63. Ishihara K, Kihira N, Terada N, Iwahori T: Environmental burdens of large Li-ion
30. Sullivan JJ, Baker RE, Boyer BA, Hammerle RH, Kenney TE, Muniz L, batteries developed in a Japanese national project. In Central research institute
Wallington TJ: CO2 emission benefit of diesel (versus gasoline) powered of electric power industry, 202nd meeting: 2002, October 20-25; Salt Lake City.
vehicles. Environ Sci Tech 2004, 38(12):3217–3223. 64. Zackrisson M, Avellan L, Orlenius J: LCA of Li-ion batteries for plug-in
31. Albus C: WLTP-development – UNECE and the parallel EU process. [http:// hybrid electric vehicles – critical issues. J Clean Prod 2010, 18:1517.
circa.europa.eu/Public/irc/enterprise/automotive/library?l=/ 65. Frischknecht R: LCA of driving electric cars and scope dependent LCA
cars_working_groups/internal_emissions/meeting_24012011/ models. In 43rd LCA Forum. Zürich; 2011.
presentation_germanypdf/_EN_1.0_&a=d]. 66. Nissan Netherlands brochure. 2011.
32. Arnold K, Dienst C, Lechtenböhmer S: Integrierte Treibhausgasbewertung 67. Frischknecht R, Flury K: Life cycle assessment of electric mobility: answers
der Prozessketten von Erdgas und industriellem Biomethan in and challenges – Zurich, April 6, 2011. Int J Life Cycle Assess 2011, 16:691–695.
Deutschland. Umweltwiss Schadst Forsch 2010, 22:135–152. 68. Althaus HJ, Notter D, Gauch M, Widmer W, Wäger P, Stamp A, Zah R: LCA of
33. Majeau-Bettez G, Hawkins TR, Strømman AH: Life cycle environmental Li-ion batteries for electric mobility. http://www.empa.ch/plugin/template/
assessment of lithium-ion and nickel metal hydride batteries for plug-in empa/*/104371.
hybrid and battery electric vehicles. Environ Sci Technol 2011, 69. Tao PC, Stefansson H, Harvey W, Saevarsdottir G: Potential use of
45(10):4548–4554. geothermal energy sources for the production of Li-ion batteries. In Word
34. Auto Motor Sport: 2011, .January (3) 128-131. Renewable Energy Congress. Linköping: WREC; 2011:8. 8–13.
35. Matsunaga M, Fukushima T, Ojima K: Powertrain system of Honda FCX 70. Samaras C, Meisterling K: Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas
Clarity fuel cell vehicle. World Elec Vehicle J 2009, 3:1–10. emissions from plug-in hybrid vehicles: implications for policy. Environ Sci
36. DWV: Wasserstoff: Der neue Energieträger. http://www.dwv-info.de/ Tech 2008, 42:3170–3176.
publikationen/2009/etraeger3.pdf. 71. Chanoine A: Comparative LCA of NiCd batteries used in cordless power
37. Simons A, Bauer C: Life cycle assessment of hydrogen use in passenger tools vs. their alternatives NiMH and Li-ion batteries. http://ec.europa.eu/
vehicles. http://www.thelma-emobility.net/pdf/IAMF%202011/ environment/waste/batteries/pdf/biois_lca_18072011.pdf.
IAMF2011_Simons.pdf. 72. Canzler W, Knie A: Einfach aufladen – mit Elektromobilität in eine saubere
38. Linssen J, Grube T, Hoehlein B, Walbeck M: Full fuel cycles and market Zukunft. München: Oekom Verlag; 2011. 121 pp.
potentials of future passenger car propulsion systems. Int J Hydrogen
Energ 2003, 28:735–741. doi:10.1186/2190-4715-24-14
39. Joint Research Center: Well-to-wheels analysis of future automotive fuels Cite this article as: Helmers and Marx: Electric cars: technical
and powertrains in the European context. http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/TWT. characteristics and environmental impacts. Environmental Sciences Europe
40. Helms H, Pehnt M, Lambrecht U, Liebich A: Electric vehicle and plug-in 2012 24:14.
hybrid energy efficiency and life cycle emissions. http://www.ifeu.de/
verkehrundumwelt/.
41. Pehnt M, Helms H, Lambrecht U, Lauwigi C, Liebich A: Umweltbewertung
von Elektrofahrzeugen. Erste Ergebnisse einer umfassenden Ökobilanz.
14th Internationaler Kongress Elektronik im Kraftfahrzeug 2010. VDI-Berichte
Elektronik im Kraftfahrzeug, Band Nr 2010, 2075:21–40.
42. Held M, Baumann M: Assessment of the environmental impacts of electric
vehicle concepts. In Towards life cycle sustainable management. Edited by
Houten Finkbeiner M.: Springer Media; 2011:535–546.
43. Mitsubishi innovative electric vehicle http://www.imiev.de/docs/iMiEV-daten.
pdf.
44. Nissan Netherlands www.nissan.nl.
45. ADAC-Motorwelt. 2011, February. Submit your manuscript to a
46. Eberhard M, Tarpenning M: The 21st century electric car. http://www.fcinfo.
jp/whitepaper/687.pdf.
journal and beneﬁt from:
47. About the ratings. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings2008.shtml.
7 Convenient online submission
48. Auto Motor Sport June 2011 (15), 106-109.
49. Althaus HJ: Comparative assertion of battery electric cars with various 7 Rigorous peer review
alternatives. http://empa.ch/plugin/template/empa/*/109103. 7 Immediate publication on acceptance
50. International Energy Agency: CO2 emissions from fuel combustion – highlights. 7 Open access: articles freely available online
http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/co2highlights.pdf. 7 High visibility within the ﬁeld
51. Yan X, Crookes RJ: Energy demand and emissions from road transportation
vehicles in China. Prog Energy Combust Sci 2010, 36:651–676. 7 Retaining the copyright to your article
52. German Federal Environmental Agency.
53. Opel Germany www.opel.de. Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropen.com

Electric Cars: Technical Characteristics and Environmental Impacts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Electric Cars: Technical Characteristics and Environmental Impacts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Electric Cars: Technical Characteristics and Environmental Impacts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Helmers and Marx Environmental Sciences Europe 2012, 24:14

REVIEW Open Access

Electric cars: technical characteristics and

Review have to be replaced by more efficient and environmentally

prospectus of Alkè Company, Italy, 2010). Also, a certain

Table 4 CO2-equivalent emissions due to the Li-ion battery production

You might also like