Research in Transportation Economics 91 (2022) 101112

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Research in Transportation Economics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/retrec

Life cycle assessment of electric vehicles and internal combustion engine

vehicles: A case study of Hong Kong
Muhammad Shafique a, b, Anam Azam c, Muhammad Rafiq d, Xiaowei Luo a, b, *
a
Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
b
Architecture and Civil Engineering Research Center, Shenzhen Research Institute of City University of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, China
c
School of Economics and Management, North China Electric Power University, Beijing, China
d
Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, Taxila, Pakistan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The transportation and electricity sectors are in the midst of leading changes in the endeavor to mitigate climate
Electric vehicle change and air pollution issues. In future years, traditional fossil-fuelled vehicles are estimated to be substituted
Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle with electric vehicles (EVs), resulting in higher electricity demand from the transport sector. Meanwhile, the
Life cycle assessment
electricity sector is transforming due to policies to adopt renewable energy resources such as solar, wind, and
Environmental impact assessment
Electricity mix
hydropower in the future. However, there are still societal concerns regarding the environmental benefits of
Greenhouse gases emissions these vehicle technologies and how new energy options and vehicles benefit the 2050 HK Carbon Neutral Plan.
To address these concerns, this paper aims to analyse the environmental burdens of current (2019) and future
(2050) vehicle scenarios in Hong Kong using a life cycle assessment (LCA). The LCA was performed for internal
combustion vehicles (ICEVs) fuelled by diesel and petrol and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs) and EVs with
future electricity energy mix scenarios (2025–2050). The results revealed that EVs with the 2050 HK electricity
mix are an optimal choice and have the least environmental impact in selected impact categories. Additionally,
PHEV with diesel were the second most optimal choice to reduce the environmental impacts in current scenarios.
In contrast, the petrol ICEV has the utmost environmental impacts in all damage category results. The study
shows that clean energy could decrease the environmental impact and mitigate climate change in Hong Kong.

air pollutant emissions than conventional vehicles in the transportation

sector (Burchart-Korol et al., 2018; Elgowainy et al., 2018; Ellingsen
1. Introduction
et al., 2017; Hawkins et al., 2013; Ma et al., 2017; Nordelöf et al., 2019;
Wu et al, 2018, 2019; Yang et al., 2021). Electric vehicles (EVs) have
The warming impact of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is contin­
gained greater consideration for adoption due to their sustainable
uously increasing globally, and transportation is one of the significant
qualities, as they can reduce CO2 emissions more than internal com­
drivers of GHG emissions. For example, the transportation sector ac­
bustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) are the
counts for 19.5% of the European Union’s GHG emissions (European
prevalent EVs, and more than one million BEVs had been sold worldwide
Environment Agency, 2014). In Hong Kong, around 18.1% of all GHG
in 2018 (EV-Volumes, 2019). With its swift economic growth, Hong
emissions in 2018 were produced by the transportation sector (Clima­
Kong’s total energy consumption amplified each year from 2000 to
teReady@HK, 2020). The transportation sector mainly use fossil fuels
2015, which also put numerous pressures on the energy supply system.
such as coal, oil, and gas that discharge significant amounts of GHGs and
In addition, the number of registered passenger vehicles increased from
generate formidable climate change (Fan et al., 2018; Timilsina &
465,894 in 2010 to 645,584 in 2019, accounting for a 27.9% increase
Shrestha, 2009). The adverse consequences of environmental degrada­
(Transport Department, 2020a). The conventional vehicle, which
tion are becoming more dominantly apparent in the shape of ambient air
mainly refers to a conventional petrol vehicle, is one of the primary
pollutants. Thus, continuing efforts are required to mitigate environ­
sources of pollutant emissions, which discharged a large amount of CO2
mental impacts and reduce transportation’s dependence on conven­
and NOx in Hong Kong in 2017 (Environment Bureau, 2017). Consid­
tional fuels.
erable financial strategies and the advancement of battery technologies
Currently, electromobility is a suitable option that generates lower

* Corresponding author. Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
E-mail address: [email protected] (X. Luo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2021.101112
Received 1 November 2020; Received in revised form 16 June 2021; Accepted 25 June 2021
Available online 12 July 2021
0739-8859/© 2021 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
M. Shafique et al. Research in Transportation Economics 91 (2022) 101112

Another primary concern about road transportation is air pollution such

Abbreviations as NOx, SO2, CO, ozone, volatile organic compounds, toxic heavy metals
(e.g., lead, mercury), organic pollutants (e.g., dioxins), and particulate
BEV Battery electric vehicles matter. Air pollution has an adverse effect on human health and affects
EV Electric vehicle various parts of the human body (Kampa & Castanas, 2008). Trans­
FD Fossil depletion portation noise is also a serious issue that causes health problems. As EVs
FPM Fine particulate matter do not have a combustion engine, they do not discharge direct CO2
FU Functional unit emissions and air pollutions into the natural atmosphere. Although EVs
GHGs Greenhouse gases provide momentous benefits in terms of reduction of fossil energy con­
GWP Global warming potential sumption as well as pollutant emissions, it is unclear whether they have
GREET Greenhouse gases, regulated emissions, and energy use potential in the life cycle (while considering material production,
in transportation vehicle manufacture, and recycling processes) (Bauer et al., 2015; Faria
HT Human toxicity et al., 2013; Ke et al., 2017; Rosenfeld et al., 2019; Zeng et al., 2016).
HK Hong Kong Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been introduced to assess the energy and
ICEV Internal combustion vehicle environmental impact of various vehicles. For example, Hawkins et al.
LCA Life cycle assessment (2013) performed an LCA study on EVs and conventional vehicles; the
LU Land use results showed that EVs can decrease GHG emissions by up to 29%.
MD Mineral depletion Moreover, Faria et al. (2013) performed an LCA study of an EV in
OZF Ozone formation various geographical locations (France, Portugal, and Poland), and the
PHEV Plug-in hybrid vehicle results manifested that the highest air pollution by the EV was found in
SAW Simple additive method Poland, as a major portion of Polish electricity is generated from coal.
TE Terrestrial ecotoxicity On the other hand, France had the lowest emissions because a significant
WLTP Worldwide harmonised light vehicle test procedure portion of French electricity is produced from nuclear plants.
Multiple studies have been performed on the evaluation of LCA of
EVs and ICEVs in different geographical locations: Brazil (de Souza et al.,
2018), China (Qiao et al., 2019; Shi et al., 2019), Lithuania (Pet­
have positively sped up the growth of EVs. In Hong Kong, in 2010–2019, rauskienė et al., 2020), Poland (Burchart-Korol et al., 2018), Czech
more than 90% of the passenger vehicles were petrol-driven (Transport Republic (Burchart-Korol et al., 2018), Canada (Bicer & Dincer, 2018),
Department, 2020b); diesel vehicles represented around 5% of the fleet Japan (Kosai et al., 2018), Sweden (Nordelöf et al, 2014, 2019),
(Fig. 1). The number of EVs began increasing rapidly after 2015, and the Switzerland (Bauer et al., 2015; Yazdanie et al., 2014), and the United
increase is expected to continue, as the Hong Kong government is States (Onat et al., 2018). Recent researchers have shown that the
providing incentives to the public for the adoption of EVs in the future environmental performance of battery EVs is strongly dependent on the
(Environment Protection Department of Hong Kong, 2020). Hong Kong size of the battery, the energy used for the battery recharging and pro­
has also taken some initiatives to boost the EV industry, such as the first duction phase, and how the energy is produced (Cox et al., 2018;
registration tax concession for EVs and 100% profit tax deduction for Ellingsen et al., 2016; Peters et al., 2017).
EVs in the first year of registration in Hong Kong (Environment Pro­ To provide a comprehensive LCA calculation of EVs and plug-in
tection Department of Hong Kong, 2020). hybrid vehicles (PHEVs), the future energy mix, and a comprehensive
From the environmental perspective, electromobility would benefit life cycle inventory database, there is a need for an LCA evaluation that
from reducing air pollution and noise. The incorporation of EVs into the considers all these aspects. In addition, there remains a major gap in the
city transportation system is necessary to promote sustainable devel­ literature, as all previous studies (Bauer et al., 2015; Burchart-Korol
opment in the Hong Kong transport sector (Environment Bureau, 2017). et al., 2018; Petrauskienė et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2021) have focused on

Fig. 1. The total number of registered petrol, diesel, and electric passenger vehicles in Hong Kong.

2
M. Shafique et al. Research in Transportation Economics 91 (2022) 101112

the environmental impact assessment of BEV and missed the impact of assumes the total lifetime distance traveled by PHEVs, EVs, and ICEVs is
the energy transition considering all different types of vehicles (such as 150,000 km, and impacts are calculated based on the overall perfor­
BEV, PHEV) with diesel and petrol. Thus, future development in the mance of vehicles during their lifetime. The scope of this analysis in­
electricity sector must be incorporated into the life cycle database to cludes the cradle to grave life cycle assessment of vehicles, covering the
assess future EVs’ environmental impacts accurately. Beltran et al. production, transport, use, and maintenance phases of vehicles. The full
(2020) showed that the environmental performance of EVs and ICEVs description of system boundaries for PHEVs, EVs, and ICEVs is shown in
changes strongly in the future energy scenarios, and the relative per­ Fig. 2.
formance of two powertrains differs significantly based on the chosen The production phase consists of the production, assembly, and
scenario. Similarly, Cox et al. (2018) also showed that the future energy transport processes of vehicle components. The LCA phases comprise
sector must be included in LCA to evaluate EVs’ environmental impacts vehicle and battery production, use, and maintenance of vehicles. The
comprehensively. However, Cox et al. (2018) only included the future vehicles’ operation incorporates the direct emissions of fuels and non-
energy mix scenarios for BEV. Only a few studies (Burchart-Korol et al., exhaust emissions caused by brakes, roads, and tire wear. EVs do not
2018; Messagie et al., 2014) included the uncertainty analysis of the have direct pollutant emissions during the use phase, but all emissions
vehicle performance parameters independently. However, presently, are accounted for by the electricity production process. Therefore, it is
there is a literature gap regarding how the future energy mix could have imperative to know the generation methods of electricity used for EV
an impact on the overall LCA performance of EV and PHEV using the HK battery charging because they directly impact EVs’ overall emissions
energy mix. To fill this research gap, the following research questions during their life cycle assessment. Therefore, the system boundary of the
are answered: a) Do EVs and PHEVs mitigate the impact of climate EV and PHEV flow includes the electricity mix of HK from 2019 to 2050.
change compared with conventional vehicles in future energy scenarios This analysis utilises future electricity mix scenarios of 2025, 2030,
or only in the scenario where electricity sector decarbonisation is ach­ 2035, and 2050 for EVs and PHEVs and compares them with conven­
ieved? b) Which environmental benefits could be achieved with vehicle tional vehicles fuelled by petrol and diesel.
electrification compared with ICEVs by utilising the HK future energy
mix scenarios? 3. Life cycle inventory and data analysis
The present study tries to fill the above research gaps using LCA
evaluation of ICEVs, EVs, and PHEVs, taking Hong Kong as a case study. 3.1. Vehicle manufacturing phase
The main objective of the paper is to undertake a comprehensive anal­
ysis that can provide comprehensive answers to the questions above. To The material production consists of various stages, including mining,
achieve this, this analysis a) examines the production and use phase smelting, and refining for metals, whereas polymer production com­
environmental impact of different powertrains and their relative per­ prises oil and gas recovery and refining, etc. According to the current
formance assessment based on complete LCA results, b) provides situation, the popular BEVs in HK are compact cars; therefore, these cars
consistent life cycle environmental impacts of current (2019) and future were selected in this study. The vehicle comprises various assemblies
(2050) passenger vehicles (EV and PHEV) based on future energy mix such as the chassis, power train system, transmission system, traction
scenarios, and c) helps engineers identify green opportunities in the motors, batteries, vehicle fluids, and vehicle assembly, which each
future transport system and helps policy-makers optimise the portfolio consist of several materials (Burnham, 2012). The detailed material
of HK energy development. proportion of PHEV, ICEV, and EV are summarised in Table 1. The
The remainder of this paper is organised as follows. Section 2 de­ vehicle is mainly composed of systems that can be separated into single
scribes the methodology used in this study. The life cycle inventory parts. ICEVs and EVs are the two main vehicle systems that consist of an
calculations are shown in Section 3, followed by the results and dis­ internal combustion engine and a battery system, while PHEVs have
cussion in Section 4. Section 5 concludes this study with future both an internal combustion engine and a battery system in one pow­
recommendations. ertrain system. For the PHEV and EV, the study extracts the battery
values from Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in
2. Methodology Transportation (GREET) database (Argonne National Laboratory, 2019).
In addition, as most EVs (Transport Department, 2020b) are compact
2.1. Goal and scope of the study cars and have higher battery capacity, and materials which are selected
through the GREET database (Burnham, 2012). We have used the data
Life cycle assessment is a method used to evaluate the environmental from GREET and selected the weight of the PHEV and EV in our study. As
impact of a product, activity, or process throughout its lifetime. The there is no original equipment manufacturer (OEM) plant in Hong Kong,
environmental impacts of internal combustion engines and electric ve­ therefore, these vehicles were produced in other countries, and after
hicles were analysed in accordance with the procedure and recom­ that, they were transported to Hong Kong. As the transportation envi­
mendations of ISO-14040 (International Organization for ronmental impact accounted for a minimal value compared with the
Standardization, 2006), including the four main steps: goal and scope production and use phase, so it is neglected in this study. The overall
definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and result interpre­ mass for the ICEV, PHEV, and EV are assumed to be 1395, 1867, and
tation. A comparative LCA based on a well-to-wheel analysis was per­ 1744 kg (Ecoinvent, 2020; Electric Vehicle Database, 2019). The curb
formed to estimate vehicles’ environmental impacts, and the details are weights of the PHEV and EV are 33.8% and 25.0% heavier than the
described. ICEV, while the curb weight of the PHEV is 7.0% heavier than the EV.
This is because the PHEV consists of an internal combustion engine and
2.2. Functional unit and system boundary battery together in one powertrain. ICEV vehicle production requires an
input of 5635.6 MJ of thermal energy and 4376.0 MJ of electricity. For
This study aimed to assess and compare the environmental impacts the production of EVs, a total energy input of 15,429.3 MJ of thermal
of the production and use phases of PHEVs, EVs, and ICEVs. To compare energy and 6463.1 MJ of electricity is required during the vehicle
the LCA of different vehicles, generally, a functional unit of total dis­ manufacturing process. In contrast, the PHEV required 8425.3 MJ of
tance traveled by vehicles during the lifetimes “150,000 km” has been thermal energy and 4958.1 MJ of electricity for the overall production
used in previous studies. Several authors assumed an average lifetime of and assembly, as expressed in Table 1.
14 years for EVs, with a total lifetime mileage of 150,000 km (Burch­
art-Korol et al., 2018; Girardi et al., 2015; Hawkins et al., 2013; Pet­
rauskienė et al., 2020). Therefore, for a fair comparison, this study

3
M. Shafique et al. Research in Transportation Economics 91 (2022) 101112

Fig. 2. System boundary.

3.2. Vehicle operation phase midpoint categories, which have higher environmental impacts in the
case of ICEVs, PHEVs, and EVs. The main purpose of the ReCiPe method
In addition to the overall distance traveled (150,000 km) by each is to convert the long list of inputs and outputs of the whole LCA into a
vehicle, other vital parameters considered for the LCA were fuel con­ number of indicators that have a higher environmental impact (Goed­
sumption, non-exhaust emissions (particles released from brake wear, koop et al., 2008). This study selected the environmental impact cate­
tire wear, and road surface wear), and exhaust emissions. Fuel con­ gories at the midpoint, which have a higher impact during the analysis,
sumption strongly depends on vehicle type. Table 2 reports the main such as global warming potential, ozone formation, fine particulate
assumptions of the driving mission sets for each of the PHEVs and EVs formation, terrestrial ecotoxicity, human toxicity, land use, and fossil
(the EV from 2019 to 2050 and the petrol PHEV and diesel PHEV): en­ depletion and mineral depletion. These are very useful impact categories
ergy consumption, etc. Table 3 summarises the characteristics (e.g., fuel to estimate the impact of a product with regard to sustainability (Bicer &
economy, road surface, and tire wear emissions) of the ICEV with diesel Dincer, 2018; de Souza et al., 2018). Therefore, to select a green and
and petrol. As shown in Table 2, the EV’s energy consumption per km sustainable vehicle, a comprehensive LCA was performed in the present
driving distance is assumed to be 0.206 kWh. In addition, the HK future study.
electricity mix scenarios from 2025 to 2050 were used to estimate the
environmental impacts of the EVs. 3.4. Uncertainty analysis
During the vehicle use phase, the ICEV runs on petrol or diesel, and
the EV runs on the HK electricity mix, while the PHEV runs on diesel/ Uncertainty is an in-built element, which needs attention for results
petrol and electricity. Therefore, the emissions from petrol, diesel, and assessment. In LCA analysis, the result varies due to the choice of the
electricity production were counted during the life cycle assessment of electricity generation mix, co-products, and curb weights of vehicles.
this study. As PHEVs can run in combination mode (energy supply from For the PHEV, a parametric study for optimal percentage selection of
an onboard battery or the internal combustion engine with diesel/ fuel and electricity was performed. The study also performed an un­
petrol), this study assumes that 50% of the distance is traveled using certainty analysis to assess the robustness of the use phase results, as
diesel/petrol and the other 50% is traveled using electricity (Wu & these are the major part of the present study. In the present study, un­
Zhang, 2017; Yang et al., 2021). In addition, to determine the impact of certainty analyses for the selected environmental impact categories are
the production and use of electricity during the life cycle assessment, the performed for diesel ICEVs, petrol ICEVs, PHEVs, and EVs using the
HK electricity mix (2019–2050) was used for this study. The data used current HK energy mix for 2019 and the future energy mix for 2050.
for the life cycle impact assessment of electricity production are
retrieved from the Ecoinevnt database, while the HK electricity mix 4. Results and discussion
scenarios were made using the Simapro software. The transmission and
charging losses were also considered during the life cycle assessment. 4.1. Results of the vehicle production phase

3.3. Life cycle impact assessment Fig. 3 shows the results of the vehicle production phase, consisting of
component production and vehicle manufacturing. Parts manufacturing
The life cycle impact assessment was performed with the software involves a number of mechanical and chemical processes such as cast­
Simapro 9.1. The ReCiPe method was chosen to gauge the environ­ ing, rolling, and stamping (Wang et al., 2020). In addition, in this study,
mental impact assessment of PHEVs, EVs, and ICEVs, as it is widely used we assumed that steel/iron, aluminum, and plastics were produced in
by other researchers (Goedkoop et al., 2008). The primary objective of the countries that manufactured these vehicles, and we utilised their
the ReCiPe method is to transform the long list of life cycle inventory local parameter while estimating the production impact of the vehicles
results into a limited number of indicator scores. These indicator scores in this process. After the production, the vehicles were shipped to HK.
express each category’s environmental impact and help select the The stacked charts indicate the environmental impact contributions of
product with the least environmental impact. LCA database Ecoinvent 3 each component of the vehicles. Fig. 3 compares the different environ­
was utilised to collect life cycle inventory data (Ecoinvent, 2020). A mental impacts associated with the production of the ICEV, EV, and
cradle to grave life cycle analysis, including material extraction, trans­ PHEV. Results include the impact of processes and components pro­
portation of material, use phases and maintenance phases, was per­ duced during the life cycle assessment. The productions of advanced
formed in this study. This method was utilised to determine the impacts vehicles such as EV and PHEV have higher environmental impacts than
of multiple midpoint categories, and the results were shown for the ICEV, because EV and PHEV are heavier due to Li-ion batteries than

4
M. Shafique et al. Research in Transportation Economics 91 (2022) 101112

Table 1 Table 1 (continued )

Mass and energy balance of ICEV, EV, and PHEV vehicle production (Argonne Materials and Energy Unit ICEV EV PHEV
National Laboratory, 2019; Electric Vehicle Database, 2019; Ecoinvent, 2020;
Electric Vehicle; Rosenfeld et al., 2019). Lithium Hexafluorophosphase (RoW)
(PVDF)
Materials and Energy Unit ICEV EV PHEV Electricity [Medium Voltage] MJ – 2094.4 589.4
Chassis* Thermal energy from coal MJ – 9805.6 2801.6
Aluminium casting part [Metal parts] kg 3.7 4.1 3.9 Generator
Cast iron [Metal parts] kg 22.9 25.3 25.6 Aluminium casting part kg – – 18.2
Copper wire [Metals] kg 3.7 4.1 4.6 Copper wire kg – – 14.0
Plastic part [Plastic parts] kg 5.9 6.5 7 Steel plate kg – – 18.2
Steel plate kg 282 311.3 340.9 Vehicle assembly
Styrene-butadiene-rubber [Plastics] kg 14.8 16.3 17 Electricity [Medium Voltage] MJ 4338.2 4338.2 4338.2
Vehicle Body Thermal energy from natural gas MJ 5573.9 5573.9 5573.9
Aluminium sheet [Metal parts] kg 8.9 4 4.2 Source: Data based on GREET 2019; (*) Confidential industry data; Ecoinvent data
Copper wire [Metals] kg 3.4 11.5 11.3
(Ecoinvent, 2020).
Float flat glass [Minerals] kg 32.4 38.9 37.9
Plastic part [Plastic parts] kg 123 110.1 130.7
Steel sheet with zinc plated [Metals] kg 509.6 416.3 392.2
Styrene-butadiene-rubber [Plastics] kg 4.9 2.7 3 Table 2
Powertrain System* Summary of specification of EV (Ecoinvent, 2020; Electric Vehicle Database,
Aluminium ingot [Metals] kg 47.1 – – 2019).
Cast iron part [Metal parts] kg 0.5 – 84.5
EV Default value
Copper wire [Metals] kg 15.5 12.6 10.4
Plastic part [Plastic parts] kg 43.5 18.2 31.1 Passenger car maintenance 0.000007 p/km
Steel plate kg 127.9 0.8 186.1 Brake wear emissions 0.000001 kg/km
Styrene-butadiene-rubber [Plastics] kg 0 – – Road surface wear emissions 0.000012 kg/km
Aluminium sheet part [Metal parts] kg – – 50.8 Tire wear emissions 0.000068 kg/km
Lead acid battery Vehicle energy consumption (WLTP) 0.206* kWh/km
Glass fibers [Minerals] kg 0.8 0.6 0.6 The overall weight of EV 1744 kg
Lead [Metals] kg 25.7 20.7 20.7 The overall weight of PHEV 1867 kg
Polypropylene part [Plastic parts] kg 2.3 1.8 1.8
Sulphuric acid (98%) [Inorganic kg 2.9 2.4 2.4 Notes:* Represent the revised parameter for HK’s situation.
intermediate products]
Thermal energy from natural gas MJ 61.7 49.8 49.8
Water (process water) kg 423.0 423.0 423.0 Table 3
Electricity [Medium Voltage] MJ 37.8 30.5 30.5 Summary of specification for ICEV data (Burchart-Korol et al., 2018; Ecoinvent,
Transmission system 2020).
Aluminium casting part [Metal parts] kg 29.7 14.8 14.7
Cast iron [Metals] kg 24.4 – – ICEV The default value for The default value for
Copper wire [Metals] kg – 13.9 13.9 ICEV_Diesel ICEV_ Petrol
Steel plate kg 28.1 44.4 44.5 Passenger car 6.45E-06 p/km 6.45E-06 p/km
Styrene-butadiene-rubber [Plastics] kg 4.7 – – maintenance
Vehicle Fluids Brake wear emissions 5.77E-06 kg/km 5.77E-06 kg/km
Ethylene glycol [Organic intermediate kg 27.2 14.4 20.8 Road surface wear 1.27E-05 kg/km 1.27E-05 kg/km
products] emissions
Water (Deionsed for operating materials) kg 75.1 41.4 47.8 Tire wear emissions 7.43E-05 kg/km 7.43E-05 kg/km
Gasoline blendstock (For operation) kg 168.1 5.2 161.1 Fuel consumptions 5.9* l/100 km 8.6*l/100 km
Naphtha [For Operation] kg 112.1 3.5 107.9 The overall weight of a 1395 kg 1395 kg
Methanol [For Operation] kg 47.9 27 27 vehicle
Plastic part [Plastic parts] kg – 13.5 13.6
Traction motor Notes:* Represent the revised parameter for HK’s situation.
Aluminium casting part [Metal parts] kg – 33.3 18.2
Copper wire [Metals] kg – 25.6 14
Steel plate kg – 33.3 18.2
conventional vehicles. In addition, EVs have more significant environ­
Electronic controller mental impacts compared to ICEV and PHEV. This excess impact is
Aluminium casting part [Metal parts] kg – 41.7 13.1 clearly noticeable for global warming potential (GWP), ozone formation
Copper wire [Metals] kg – 6.2 2.3 (OZF), fine particulate matter (FPM), terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE), human
Steel plate kg 3.8 1.4
toxicity (HT), land use (LU), and fossil depletion (FD) and mineral
–
Styrene-butadiene-rubber [Plastics] kg – 2.8 1
Plastic part [Plastic parts] kg – – 6.6 depletion (MD). All impact category results with numeric values are
Li-Ion battery* presented in Table S1 in the Supplementary Material section.
Aluminium casting part [Metal parts] kg – 120.7 35 Fig. 3 shows that the EV has a higher impact on GWP as compared
Copper wire [Metals] kg 57.9 16.8
–
with the ICEV and the PHEV. The EV’s GWP impact (kg CO2 eq) is almost
Ethylene glycol [Organic intermediate kg – 11.4 3.3
products]
40% higher than the ICEV and 23% higher than the PHEV, respectively.
Glass fibers [Minerals] kg – 2.5 0.7 The ICEV was found to have the least total environmental impact value,
Polyethylene terephthalate compound kg – 1 0.3 at 6,333 kg CO2 eq. As shown in Fig. 3, the production of the ICEV has
[Plastics] the lowest impact compared with the PHEV and EV. Terrestrial eco­
Polypropylene compound [Plastics] kg 5.4 1.6
toxicity indicates the impact on human health, where the EV has the
–
Steel Plate kg – 3 0.9
Water (Deionised) kg – 43.1 12.4 highest impact, which is more than twice that of the ICEV. This is due to
Graphite kg – 81.2 23.5 the impact of larger Li-ion batteries in the case of the EV. In terms of
Lithium Hexafluorophosphase (LiPF6) kg – 7.9 2.3 ozone formation and fine particulate formation, the results show a sig­
Ethylene Carbonate kg 21.9 6.4
–
nificant impact in the case of the EV compared with the other two
Polyethylene high density granulate kg – 1.8 0.5
Cobalt (NMC) kg – 113.2 32.8
powertrains. In addition, in the case of terrestrial ecotoxicity and human
kg – – 3 toxicity, the EV’s impact is almost double that of the PHEV. As there are
more materials involved in EV manufacturing, midpoint results show a

5
M. Shafique et al. Research in Transportation Economics 91 (2022) 101112

Fig. 3. Impacts of the production phase of vehicles.

higher impact in the case of the FD and MD categories. From the pro­ respectively.
duction results analysis, it can be seen that the production of the ICEV For EV production, the Li-ion battery is responsible for the greatest
has the most negligible impact in the case of all midpoint impact cate­ impact in all categories, as displayed in Fig. 4. In the case of the ICEV,
gories, followed by the PHEV, as shown in Fig. 3. the vehicle body and powertrain system are composed of various ma­
To better understand the contribution percentage of each compo­ terials, and hence these two are the main contributors in all impact
nent’s impact, we grouped the components of each vehicle together, as categories, as shown in Fig. 4. For the PHEV and EV, Li-ion batteries
shown in Fig. 4. In this way, it was possible to observe the components of have the highest impact in the case of the OZF, PMF, TE, HT, LU, and MD
each vehicle that have a higher impact contribution and need further impact categories. The classical impact categories such as GWP, OZF,
attention for sustainable production in the future. In the case of the EV, PMF, HT, TE, FD, MD, and LU are analysed, and their percentage con­
the Li-ion battery contributes 46% of the total GWP. The vehicle body tributions for each vehicle type are shown in Fig. 4. The powertrain
accounts for almost 35% and 24% of GWP impacts in the case of the system also plays a major role in HT and TE, around 44% in the case of
ICEV and the PHEV, respectively, while the chassis accounted for 14% the ICEV. The Li-ion battery has the second-highest impact of GWP
and 13% of GWP impacts in the case of the ICEV and the PHEV, (18%) in the PHEV compared with the results of the other two vehicle

6
M. Shafique et al. Research in Transportation Economics 91 (2022) 101112

Fig. 4. Contribution of the components of each vehicle during the production phase.

types. show that PHEVs and EVs have lower GWP, FPM, LU, MD and FD im­
pacts than petrol ICEV. In comparison, the diesel ICEV is a better choice
according to FPM, LU, MD, and HT compared with the PHEV and EV
4.2. Results of use phase
when utilising the current (2019) HK energy mix.
According to the inventory of the future electricity generation mix by
The environmental life cycle inventory assessments of the ICEV
source type in Hong Kong for the years 2019–2050, data for the current
fuelled by diesel and petrol, the EV using the HK mix energy scenarios,
and future electricity generation were used and analysed during the LCA
and the PHEV (fuelled by diesel and petrol as well as using the HK en­
use phase analysis. A detailed description of current and future elec­
ergy mix scenarios) were performed with the ReCiPe method at the
tricity production was illustrated in Table 4. At present, natural gas and
midpoint level. Comparative LCA results of the use phase for ICEVs,
coal are the major sources of electricity production, which comprise an
PHEVs, and EVs are depicted in Fig. 5. The results of the use phase are
overall 73% of electricity production. The current energy mix (2019) is
reported here, in particular, the effects of direct emissions of the com­
based on the real energy mix data which is obtained from the 2020 press
bustion engine and the electricity production emissions. As shown in
release from the HK government (Hong Kong Special Administrative,
Fig. 5, the petrol ICEV has higher impacts in six categories (global
2020). In addition, future 2025 and 2030 energy mix data were obtained
warming potential, land use, terrestrial ecotoxicity, fine particulate
from the modeling study of Colonel-Bertrand (2020) which estimates the
formation, fossil depletion, and mineral depletion) compared with other
future energy mixes based on the 2030 HK climate action plan.
vehicles. The total results of the EV (HK electricity mix 2019), the diesel
Furthermore, future 2035 and 2050 data forecast the highest
ICEV and the petrol ICEV, and the PHEV HK 2019 with diesel and petrol

7
M. Shafique et al. Research in Transportation Economics 91 (2022) 101112

Fig. 5. Use phase results of ICEVs, EVs, and PHEVs—150,000 km.

and it is expected to increase continuously until 2030. In contrast,

Table 4
electricity production from coal and nuclear will decrease in future
Current (2019) and future proportions of electricity production mix
years, and a 0% share in the 2050 electricity production mix is expected.
(2025–2050) by the source in Hong Kong (Colonel-Bertrand, 2020; Hong Kong
The percentage share of renewable energy in electricity production is
Special Administrative, 2020) (“Hong Kong Energy Vision 2050,” 2015).
only 1% in the current year, 2019, which will continue to increase to
Unit (%) 2019 2025 2030 2035 2050
85% in the 2050 electricity production mix. Table 4 shows that in 2050,
Natural Gas 29% 33% 42% 65% 15% a vast amount of renewable electricity will be used in Hong Kong, which
Coal 44% 35% 24% 5% 0% will be an optimal choice for EVs.
Nuclear 26% 30% 32% 0% 0%
Renewable Energy 1% 2% 2% 30% 85%
Fig. 5 depicts the impact categories that have a significant impact
during the operation phase of analysed vehicles. As there are nearly zero
exhaust emissions generated by the EV, the major impact is from elec­
contribution of renewable energy mixes in the electricity production tricity generation for the EV use phase. However, we have included tire,
mixes and it is based on the World Wildlife Fund Hong Kong (2015). brake, and road surface wear emission default values for realistic results,
Hong Kong has the largest share of natural gas in electricity production, as shown in Tables 2 and 3 Fig. 5 depicts that during the use phase the

8
M. Shafique et al. Research in Transportation Economics 91 (2022) 101112

EV had a major environmental impact in 2019 because electricity is still To sum up, the use phase LCA results show that the HK electricity
mainly generated using natural gas and coal. Due to the extensive use of mix dramatically affects the overall environmental impact results in all
natural gas and coal for electricity production, HK 2019 indicates categories. There is a massive decrease in environmental impacts in
adverse environmental impacts; thus, EVs in 2019 have a more future years, particularly for EVs and PHEVs. Additionally, the operation
degrading impact in four out of eight impact categories (FPM, HT, LU, stage of the EV in 2050 will release much lower GWP emissions than the
MD) compared with diesel ICEVs. Similarly, the petrol PHEV HK 2019 EV in 2019, which is mainly due to the increase in renewable energy
has a greater impact than the diesel PHEV HK 2019 in all impact cate­ production in HK electricity production. This study result mirrors the
gories except GWP and OZF. For the PHEVs 2025 and 2030 also follow a previous research findings (Burchart-Korol et al., 2018; Held &
similar pattern, as natural gas and coal are still the foremost sources of Schücking, 2019; Petrauskienė et al., 2020), indicating that the EV’s
the electricity generation mix. Therefore, the results of PHEVs in 2025 performance is enhanced by utilising renewable energy sources.
and 2030 are not convincing, particularly in the case of TE, HT, MD. In
contrast, in the year 2050, the major share of the HK electricity mix is 4.3. Complete LCA results
projected to be renewable energy, contributing almost 85%. Therefore,
the EV-2050 energy mix scenario has the least impact value on GWP, 4.3.1. Comparison of production and use phase environmental impact
OZF, FPM, TE, and FD. Fig. 6 shows the production and use phase result together, and their
From the analysis of the results, electric vehicles are still dominant in impacts are presented in percentage for each vehicle type. Advanced
reducing all categories’ impact, even in a state dominated by fossil vehicles such as EVs and PHEVs have higher percentages of GWP impact
sources for electricity production. Fig. 5 shows that the ICEV with petrol in the production phase than ICEVs. However, the GWP production
and diesel has a higher GWP impact. In addition, the diesel PHEV has a impact percentage increases from 2019 to 2050 in the case of EVs. In
lower GWP impact than the petrol PHEV. This is because petrol vehicles addition, it can be seen that in the case of the EV in 2050, there was a
have higher direct emissions in the use phase compared with all other 68% of GWP impact during the production stage, while only a 32% of
vehicles. Based on the operation phase assessment, it can be seen that GWP impact during the use phase. Similarly, the environmental impact
different electricity mixes have different impacts on GWP, HT, OZF, and percentages of the EV in 2050 production (i.e., OZF, FPM, LU, HT, MD
FPM by different types of vehicles, as presented in Fig. 5. All impact and FD) were higher than all other vehicle production impacts, as shown
category results with numeric values (see the Supplementary Material in Fig. 6. Comparing PHEVs and EVs, the environmental impact per­
section) are presented in Table S1. centages (GWP, OZF, HT, FPM, and FD) of the production phase are
Ozone depletion potential refers to the damage of ozone gas in the expected to increase in future years, as this study uses a similar weight
upper atmosphere, which is majorly associated with the use of chloro­ and energy mix for the production of vehicles. This indicates that EVs
fluorocarbons in aerosol products. The production of steel, aluminum, and PHEVs do not include a modified database with the lightweight EVs
copper, zinc, lithium, nickel, rubber, and plastic mainly causes the and PHEVs in future years.
higher emissions of methyl chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, halons, In terms of MD, the production stage impact of the EV in 2050 and
and hydrobromofluorocarbons. This process contributes to the overall the petrol PHEV in 2050 account for 98% and 93%, respectively. For FD,
higher values of OZF in the atmosphere. The EVs has the optimal envi­ the highest production impact was 56% for the EV in 2050, followed by
ronmental results for the OZF impact category, followed by the petrol 27% for the diesel PHEV HK in 2050. The result shows that the pro­
PHEVs, diesel PHEVs, and petrol ICEV. The diesel ICEV has the most duction stage was still a prominent phase in the life cycle of EVs and
significant OZF impact (382.8 kg NOx eq) in the use phase, which is PHEVs. The LCA impacts of ICEVs were dominant by the use phase. EVs
almost much higher than that of the EV in 2019 (15.2 kg NOx eq). and PHEVs with smaller batteries and lighter weights should be pro­
A fine particulate matter (FPM) refers to the fine particles presented duced in the future to reduce their overall production stage impacts.
in an atmosphere, mainly ambient pollution. Fig. 5 shows that the EV in
2019 and the EV in 2025 have a more significant impact on the FPM 4.3.2. Complete LCA of ICEVs, EVs, and PHEVs of current (2019) and
impact category compared to all other vehicles. Generating current future (2050) scenarios
(2019) HK electricity from natural gas (29%) and coal (44%) produces a The environmental LCA of diesel ICEVs, petrol ICEVs, and current
higher amount of dust and fine particles. Therefore, FPM impact is (2019) and future (2050) scenarios for EVs and PHEVs was performed,
caused by the EV and PHEV with petrol in 2019’s use phase was found to and the results were analysed using the ReCiPe method at the midpoint
be higher than diesel ICEV. level. Fig. 7 presents the comparative analysis of the full LCA (including
Human toxicity (HT) refers to the potential impact on human health production, operation, and maintenance phases) of diesel ICEVs, petrol
caused by the toxic emission of harmful particles into the atmosphere, ICEVs, and EVs (2019–2050 electricity generation mix scenarios). Full
including ethane, phenols, and non-methane volatile organic com­ midpoint impact category results of ICEVs and EVs (2019–2050) are
pounds. From the use phase results analysis, the EVs show the higher shown in Table S2 in Supplementary Materials.
environmental performance for the HT, followed by diesel PHEVs, petrol For a comparison of impact results of all vehicles, we have selected
PHEV, petrol ICEV and diesel ICEV, as demonstrated in Fig. 5. As the the petrol ICEV as the base vehicle. Fig. 7 presented the impact of GWP,
future HK electricity mix utilises a higher proportion of renewable en­ where the EV 2050 result has the least GWP impact (37%) followed by
ergy, it reduces the production of dust and fine particles. Therefore, the the diesel PHEV in 2050 (61%) and the petrol PHEV in 2050 (68%)
EV in 2050 shows the greatest reduction in HT compared with the EV in compared with the petrol ICEV. The EV in 2019 has (24%) lower GWP
2019. Similarly, the terrestrial ecotoxicity (TE) environmental impact of impact than the petrol ICEV.
the EV in 2050 is almost 2 times less than that of the petrol ICEV. The It is also evident from Fig. 7 that the EV in 2050 shows lower OZF and
lowest environmental impact of TE was found in the use phase of the EV FPM impact than all other vehicles. The results also showed that the EVs
in 2035, as manifested in Fig. 5. (2019 and 2050) has a more significant impact concerning HT impact.
FD and MD impact categories refer to the use of non-renewable fossil The petrol PHEV in 2019 had the third-highest HT impact compared
fuels such as natural gas, petroleum fuels, and coal as well as minerals with other vehicles. This is because HK electricity is mainly produced
such as copper. Fig. 5 presents that the EV in 2050 shows the least FD from natural gas and coal, as shown in Table 4. In contrast, results
impact of all vehicles. In contrast, the petrol ICEV indicates a higher FD analysis indicates that the petrol ICEV has a lower mineral depletion
impact than all other vehicles. For the MD impact category, results impact than EVs and PHEVs. In the LU impact category, the diesel ICEV
reveal that the diesel ICEV has the least environmental of all vehicles in requires the least space, and its LU impact is 97% less than the petrol
the use phase, while the petrol ICEV shows the higher MD impact, fol­ ICEV. For fossil depletion, the EV in 2050 is a sustainable option for HK’s
lowed by the petrol PHEV HK in 2019 and the diesel PHEV HK in 2019. future transport system, as it uses fewer resources, which also fulfills the

9
M. Shafique et al. Research in Transportation Economics 91 (2022) 101112

Fig. 6. Complete life cycle impacts of ICEVs, PHEVs, and EVs using the HK electricity mix.

criteria of the circular economy. The results indicate that the FD impact environmental impacts of all midpoint categories except HT, LU, and
of the EV in 2050 is 77% lower compared with the petrol ICEV. The MD. Thus, it is proven that turning from fossil fuels towards renewable
diesel PHEV in 2050 has the second-lowest FD impact value, which is energy provides significant advantages in protecting the overall envi­
56% lower than our base vehicle. For mineral depletion, the diesel ICEV ronment and achieving transport sustainability. In contrast, the petrol
has a 13% lower impact than the petrol ICEV. On the other hand, the EV ICEV is the highest polluting vehicle in the HK transport system, and it
in 2050 and the petrol PHEV in 2050 indicate 910% and 274% higher should be replaced with an electric vehicle in the near future to make the
MD impacts than the base vehicle. HK transport system green and sustainable.
To sum up, through the current and future LCA analysis, results show To have a clear overview of the results pertaining to the whole LCA,
that the EV in 2050 is a sustainable choice in reducing the they have been transformed into a synoptic format, as shown in Fig. 8.

10
M. Shafique et al. Research in Transportation Economics 91 (2022) 101112

Fig. 7. Midpoint results of complete LCA of the petrol ICEV and the diesel ICEV and current (2019) and future (2050) scenario of the EV and PHEV.

All the impact results for current and future scenarios were normalised least overall impact.
by Equation (1), as shown below, and their impacts are displayed in On the other hand, for the future HK electricity mix scenario (2050),
synoptic format. overall results in accordance with all impact categories show that the EV
in 2050 has the least environmental impact, followed by the diesel PHEV
xi − min(x)
zi = (1) in 2050, as shown in Fig. 8(b). Looking at the future, the ICEV is still
max(x) − min(x)
contributing larger impacts in the use phase. In the future scenario, EVs
are generally preferable to PHEVs and ICEVs with the same lifetime and
where; x= (x1 … …. ….,xn) and zi is the value of ith normalise data. xi is
vehicle characteristics.
the present value to be normalised, min(x) is the minimum values in x,
and max (x) is the maximum values in x.
In order to clearly show the current and future EVs and PHEVs’ 4.4. Uncertainty analysis
comparison results with ICEVs, the results of ICEVs compared to current
EVs and PHEVs were shown in Fig. 8(a), and the results of ICEVs The uncertainty analysis was employed to determine the uncertainty
compared to future EVs and PHEVs were shown in Fig. 8(b). Fig. 8(a) of the use phase results of the petrol ICEV, diesel ICEV, PHEV, and EV on
shows the higher impact of the petrol ICEV in the case of the present all eight selected midpoint categories. The Monte Carlo uncertainty
scenario (2019), and the diesel PHEV HK 2019 was found to have the analysis is conducted with 1000 trials, as suggested by Inyim et al.

11
M. Shafique et al. Research in Transportation Economics 91 (2022) 101112

Fig. 8. Complete life cycle impacts of vehicles using HK electricity mix. a) ICEV with current EV and PHEV in 2019. b) ICEV with future EV and PHEV in 2050.

(2016), and a 95% confidence interval. Since there is a lack of energy Countries should encourage the adaptation of a cleaner energy option
and emission factors of products in Hong Kong, the values and infor­ for future transport electrification.
mation from the Ecoinvent database were used. Thereby, this added
uncertainty to the LCA results. This study mainly utilised the current and 5. Conclusion
future electricity mix for the electric vehicle; it is very important to
calculate the uncertainty in the use phase of ICEVs, EVs, and PHEVs for A comparative environmental impact assessment of ICEV, petrol
robust calculations. Therefore, to make our robust conclusion, an un­ ICEVs, PHEVs, and EVs was undertaken based on the ReCiPe method’s
certainty analysis was performed for selected impact categories for midpoint indicators. For EV and PHEVs’ environmental impact assess­
ICEVs, PHEVs, and EVs, as shown in Fig. 9. Based on the coefficient of ment, the future electricity mix scenarios were included from the HK
variation, the EV in 2019 has the least uncertainty compared to all other electricity mix from 2019 to 2050. Hong Kong was selected as a case
vehicles for GWP. Results also revealed that the EV in 2019 shows lower study; the vehicle production, use, and transport phase results were
uncertainty in all impact categories concerning variance, as represented included in the whole life cycle assessment. The conclusions made are as
in Fig. 9. In contrast, the petrol ICEV showed greater uncertainty with follows:
respect to the coefficient of variation in all impact categories except TE.
Uncertainty analysis results revealed that HT impact categories would 1. Based on the evaluation of vehicle production, the EV manifests the
deviate most compared with all other impact categories for each vehicle, highest environmental impact in all impact categories, as it uses a
as shown in Fig. 9. Various factors affect the operation of vehicles, larger material proportion than other vehicles.
including fuel efficiency, battery size, and vehicle speed. Thus, the 2. Results indicated that EV environmental performance mainly de­
environmental impact assessment calculated in each vehicle might be pends on the electricity mix, which is mainly used to provide energy
overestimated. However, the uncertainty analysis result did not reject to the EV. This study indicates that the current (2019) HK electricity
the conclusions drawn in the present work. mix is not suitable for adopting EVs. However, some EVs are a suit­
able option for the HK transportation system. The PHEVs with diesel
4.5. Comparison of LCA results with published literate indicate lower particulate matter formation in 2019 and 2025 than
EVs, which could be a quick option to reduce ambient pollution in
The LCA results of ICEVs, PHEVs, and EVs were compared with the Hong Kong transport system.
previous studies for the functional unit of “per km distance traveled”, as 3. At the midpoint estimation, throughout the whole life cycle analysis,
shown in Table 5. For the comparison analysis with the prior studies, the EV with the 2050 electricity mix has a lower environmental
global warming potential and human toxicity impact categories were impact in five out of eight selected impact categories including global
chosen. A result of climate change can be seen in Table 5, which shows GWP (15,712 kg CO2 eq.), OZF (71 kg NOX eq), FPM (26 kg PM2.5
various LCA studies with respect to different geographical locations. All eq), TE (55, 121 kg 1,4-DB eq.) and FD (4, 285 kg oil eq.) than the all
the results vary, as the life cycle inventory and location have a signifi­ other vehicles. This is because a significant portion of the electricity
cant impact on the overall LCA result. The previous studies’ results mix (85%) is from renewable energy sources used to recharge elec­
(Burchart-Korol et al., 2018) reported their GWP for future EV 2050; tric vehicle batteries.
their GWP impacts are found to be higher compared with our study
results. This is because our future HK electricity mix is estimated to This study result indicates that integrating renewable energy sources
utilise around 85% renewable energy sources for production. Addi­ into electricity production improves the environment and ecosystem. As
tionally, the difference in emission results might be due to operation for CO2 emissions mitigations, a higher penetration of EV in the light­
emissions factors and vehicle efficiencies, which were used in previous weight vehicle category could provide greater Environmental potential
studies. Regarding the HT impact category, the HT of ICEV with diesel in Hong Kong. As EVs are still in the immature stage in Hong Kong, the
and petrol (Petrauskienė et al., 2020) was much lower than that man­ government should provide a financial subsidy to EV buyers with
ifested in our study. Vehicle weight and battery size are the main factors reduced vehicle tax as well as an exemption to the purchase tax. In
that significantly impact environmental LCA during the production addition, we argue that for future EV adoption, there is a need to reduce
stage. While fuel consumption and fuel types are the main aspects in the coal power consumption and regional power systems. Moreover, a
use phase for the LCA, manufacturing data also play an essential role in higher renewable energy integration will not only improve the envi­
the use phase results. In the case of the EV operation LCA, the electricity ronment but also reduce the costs of tackling environmental degradation
production source majorly impacts the overall LCA results. Most of the issues in cities. The use of coal accounts for a higher proportion of the
research results indicate that the renewable electricity mix has a electricity mix due to low cost; however, the government should put
momentous impact on reducing the environmental impact of EVs. more effort into reforms on the gas market, which will be critical to

12
M. Shafique et al. Research in Transportation Economics 91 (2022) 101112

Fig. 9. Uncertainty analysis of use phase results of ICEVs, EVs, and PHEVs.

lowering the cost gap and thus improving the cost competitiveness in lower energy consumption) of EVs and infrastructure development
Hong Kong. This could be done through some reasonable planning goal (charging, etc.). The future EVs should be cost-effective so that they can
integration (gas, solar, and wind) in the regional power system in future compete with ICEVs in the market, which can further promote their use
years. There is also a high need to invest in research and development in the transportation sector. In addition, there is also a need for the
related to EVs to compete with that of ICEVs. This includes technical adoption of environmentally friendly and lightweight batteries for EVs,
development in the manufacturing (lightweight and higher milage with which can promote their economic accessibility and sustainability. The

13
M. Shafique et al. Research in Transportation Economics 91 (2022) 101112

Table 5 economic, social, and environmental life cycle assessments for

Comparison of LCA results with published literature. comprehensive analysis.
Reference Location Results
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Global warming Human toxicity (kg
potential (kg CO2 eq/ 1,4-DB eq/km)
km) Muhammad Shafique: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
This paper Hong EV in 2019: 0.237 EV in 2019: 0.126 Validation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation,
Kong EV in 2050: 0.110 EV in 2050: 0.147 Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. Anam Azam: Re­
ICEV—petrol: 0.282 ICEV—petrol: sources, Data curation. Muhammad Rafiq: Resources, Data curation,
0.094 Writing – review & editing. Xiaowei Luo: Conceptualization, Supervi­
ICEV—diesel: 0.242 ICEV—diesel:
sion, Writing – review & editing.
0.069
PHEV HK in PHEV HK in
2019—petrol: 0.258 2019—petrol: Declaration of competing interest
0.091
PHEV HK in PHEV HK in
2019—diesel: 0.238 2019—diesel: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
0.079
PHEV HK in PHEV HK in Appendix A. Supplementary data
2050—petrol: 0.194 2050—petrol:
0.102
PHEV HK in PHEV HK in Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
2050—diesel: 0.174 2050—diesel: org/10.1016/j.retrec.2021.101112.
0.090
Yang et al. (2021) China BEV:0.179–0.195 –
References
PHEV—petrol and
electricty: 0.220–0.231
Argonne National Laboratory. (2019). Argonne GREET model [WWW Document].
ICEV-petrol:
Bauer, C., Hofer, J., Althaus, H. J., Del Duce, A., & Simons, A. (2015). The environmental
0.220–0.236
performance of current and future passenger vehicles: Life Cycle Assessment based
Petrauskienė et al. Lithuania BEV 2015: 0.142 BEV 2015: 0.077 on a novel scenario analysis framework. Applied Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
(2020) BEV 2050: 0.078 BEV 2050: 0.073 apenergy.2015.01.019
ICEV-petrol: 0.105 ICEV-petrol: 0.009 Bicer, Y., & Dincer, I. (2018). Life cycle environmental impact assessments and
ICEV-diesel: 0.076 ICEV-diesel: 0.0073 comparisons of alternative fuels for clean vehicles. Resources, Conservation and
Burchart-Korol Poland BEV 2015: 0.276 BEV 2015: 0.331 Recycling. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.036
et al. (2018) BEV 2050: 0.172 BEV 2050: 0.234 Burchart-Korol, D., Jursova, S., Folęga, P., Korol, J., Pustejovska, P., & Blaut, A. (2018).
ICEV-petrol: 0.284 ICEV-petrol: 0.085 Environmental life cycle assessment of electric vehicles in Poland and the Czech
Burchart-Korol Czech BEV 2015: 0.214 BEV 2015: 0.306 Republic. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
et al. (2018) Republic BEV 2050: 0.146 BEV 2050: 0.234 jclepro.2018.08.145
ICEV-petrol: 0.284 ICEV-petrol: 0.085 Burnham, A. (2012). Updated vehicle specifications in the GREET vehicle-cycle model.
Argonne Natl. Lab.
Bicer and Dincer Canada BEV: 0.160 BEV: 0.26
ClimateReady@Hk. (2020). Greenhouse gas emissions in Hong Kong by sector. https
(2018) ICEV-petrol: 0.270 ICEV-petrol: 0.04
://www.climateready.gov.hk/files/pdf/Greenhouse%20Gas%20Emissions%20in%
ICEV-diesel: 0.23 ICEV-diesel: 0.03
20Hong%20Kong%20by%20Sector.pdf. (Accessed 9 April 2021).
Pero et al. (2018) Italy BEV: 0.129 – Colonel-Bertrand, G. P.-A. (2020). Modelling of the Hong Kong power system by 2030.
ICEV: 0.203 Cox, B., Mutel, C. L., Bauer, C., Mendoza Beltran, A., & Van Vuuren, D. P. (2018).
Onat et al. (2015) United BEV: 0.180 – Uncertain environmental footprint of current and future battery electric vehicles.
States ICEV: 0.260 Environmental Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b00261
Ecoinvent. (2020). Ecoinvent database V 3 [WWW Document].
Electric Vehicle Database. (2019). 2019. Electric vehicle database, 2019. Technical
US, Germany, Japan, and other countries have set up a specific portion specification of nissan leaf. . (Accessed 9 September 2020). https://evdatabase. org/c
ar/1106/Nissan-Leaf.
of R&D for battery development. In contrast, in Hong Kong and China, Elgowainy, A., Han, J., Ward, J., Joseck, F., Gohlke, D., Lindauer, A., Ramsden, T.,
there has been limited R&D investment in the last decade. Therefore, Biddy, M., Alexander, M., Barnhart, S., Sutherland, I., Verduzco, L., &
Hong Kong and China should enhance their R&D investment in the EV Wallington, T. J. (2018). Current and future United States light-duty vehicle
pathways: Cradle-to-Grave lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions and economic
industry, particularly in batteries, EV infrastructure, and the public assessment. Environmental Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
support platform (Zhang et al., 2017). Furthermore, a close cooperation est.7b06006
link between auto manufacturers, energy suppliers, and research in­ Ellingsen, L. A.-W., Hung, C. R., & Strømman, A. H. (2017). Identifying key assumptions
and differences in life cycle assessment studies of lithium-ion traction batteries with
stitutions is essential to make cost-effective and efficient EV technology
focus on greenhouse gas emissions. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and
in the near future. The scenario analysis results could provide mean­ Environment, 55, 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.06.028
ingful insight to the government and show that different policies and Ellingsen, L. A. W., Singh, B., & Strømman, A. H. (2016). The size and range effect:
future policy combinations may bring different results; therefore, it is Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of electric vehicles. Environmental Research
Letters. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/054010
very important to evaluate each expected future plan and policy to select Environment Bureau. (2017). Hong Kong’s climate action plan 2030+. Hong Kong.
sustainable pathways for the future transport system. Despite the above Environment Protection Department of Hong Kong. (2020). Promotion of electric
contributions, there are some limitations of this study. For example, we vehicles in Hong Kong. Environ. Prot. Dep. Hong Kong. URL Promotion of Electric
Vehicles in Hong Kong %7C Environmental Protection Department (epd.gov.hk) [WWW
only consider the production and use phase during the LCA analysis and Document].
do not consider the end-of-life phase of vehicles. We account for the European Environment Agency. (2014). Sectoral greenhouse gas emissions by IPCC sector
manufacturing of the vehicles using the present energy mix and tradi­ [WWW Document].
Ev-Volumes. (2019). EV data center. Retrieved from http://www.ev-volumes.com/data
tional materials; however, this study does not include the production of center/.
vehicles by using the future energy mix and selecting lightweight and Fan, Y. Van, Perry, S., Klemeš, J. J., & Lee, C. T. (2018). A review on air emissions
green materials for the automotive industry. Therefore: (1) Future re­ assessment: Transportation. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jclepro.2018.05.151
searchers should optimise the weight of EVs to reduce the environmental Faria, R., Marques, P., Moura, P., Freire, F., Delgado, J., & De Almeida, A. T. (2013).
burdens during the production stage. (2) Future studies are needed to Impact of the electricity mix and use profile in the life-cycle assessment of electric
select sustainable and green materials for EVs to make them competitive vehicles. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2013.03.063
in all impact categories in current and future years. (3) Future research
Girardi, P., Gargiulo, A., & Brambilla, P. C. (2015). A comparative LCA of an electric
needs to be carried out to evaluate EVs and ICEVs, which includes vehicle and an internal combustion engine vehicle using the appropriate power mix:

14
M. Shafique et al. Research in Transportation Economics 91 (2022) 101112

The Italian case study. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. https://doi.org/ Pero, F. D., Delogu, M., & Pierini, M. (2018). Life cycle assessment in the automotive
10.1007/s11367-015-0903-x sector: A comparative case study of internal combustion engine (ICE) and electric
Goedkoop, M. J., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M. A. J., Schryver, A. De, Struijs, J., & Zelm, R. car. In Procedia structural integrity. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2018.11.066
Van (2008). ReCiPE 2008: A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises Peters, J. F., Baumann, M., Zimmermann, B., Braun, J., & Weil, M. (2017). The
harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. Hague, environmental impact of Li-Ion batteries and the role of key parameters – a review.
Netherlands. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 67, 491–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Hawkins, T. R., Singh, B., Majeau-Bettez, G., & Strømman, A. H. (2013). Comparative rser.2016.08.039
environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles. Journal of Petrauskienė, K., Skvarnavičiūtė, M., & Dvarionienė, J. (2020). Comparative
Industrial Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x environmental life cycle assessment of electric and conventional vehicles in
Held, M., & Schücking, M. (2019). Utilization effects on battery electric vehicle life-cycle Lithuania. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
assessment: A case-driven analysis of two commercial mobility applications. jclepro.2019.119042
Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 75, 87–105. https://doi. Qiao, Q., Zhao, F., Liu, Z., He, X., & Hao, H. (2019). Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions
org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.08.005 of Electric Vehicles in China: Combining the vehicle cycle and fuel cycle. Energy.
Hong Kong Special Administrative. (2020). Press Releasee.LCQ1: Fuel mix for electricity https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.04.080
generation [WWW Document]. Rosenfeld, D. C., Lindorfer, J., & Fazeni-Fraisl, K. (2019). Comparison of advanced
International Organization for Standardization. (2006). Environmental management — life fuels—which technology can win from the life cycle perspective? Journal of Cleaner
cycle assessment — principles and framework (ISO 14040:2006). Geneva, Switzerland. Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117879
Inyim, P., Zhu, Y., & Orabi, W. (2016). Analysis of time, cost, and environmental impact Shi, S., Zhang, H., Yang, W., Zhang, Q., & Wang, X. (2019). A life-cycle assessment of
relationships at the building-material level. Journal of Management in Engineering, 32, battery electric and internal combustion engine vehicles: A case in hebei province,
Article 04016005. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000430 China. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.301
Kampa, M., & Castanas, E. (2008). Human health effects of air pollution. Environmental de Souza, L. L. P., Lora, E. E. S., Palacio, J. C. E., Rocha, M. H., Renó, M. L. G., &
Pollution. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2007.06.012 Venturini, O. J. (2018). Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of
Ke, W., Zhang, S., He, X., Wu, Y., & Hao, J. (2017). Well-to-wheels energy consumption conventional vehicles with different fuel options, plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles
and emissions of electric vehicles: Mid-term implications from real-world features for a sustainable transportation system in Brazil. Journal of Cleaner Production.
and air pollution control progress. Applied Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.236
apenergy.2016.12.011 Timilsina, G. R., & Shrestha, A. (2009). Transport sector CO2 emissions growth in Asia:
Kong, H. (2015). Energy vision 2050 [WWW Document] https://wwfhk.awsassets. Underlying factors and policy options. Energy Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
panda.org/downloads/hong_kong_energy_vision_2050__english_version_20150714. enpol.2009.06.009
pdf. Transport Department. (2020a). Registration and licensing of vehicles by class of vehicles
Kosai, S., Nakanishi, M., & Yamasue, E. (2018). Vehicle energy efficiency evaluation [WWW Document].
from well-to-wheel lifecycle perspective. Transportation Research Part D: Transport Transport Department. (2020b). Registration and licensing of vehicles by fuel type [WWW
and Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.09.011 Document].
Ma, Y., Ke, R.-Y., Han, R., & Tang, B.-J. (2017). The analysis of the battery electric Wang, L., Shen, W., Kim, H. C., Wallington, T. J., Zhang, Q., & Han, W. (2020). Life cycle
vehicle’s potentiality of environmental effect: A case study of beijing from 2016 to water use of gasoline and electric light-duty vehicles in China. Resources,
2020. Journal of Cleaner Production, 145, 395–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Conservation and Recycling. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104628
jclepro.2016.12.131 Wu, Z., Wang, C., Wolfram, P., Zhang, Y., Sun, X., & Hertwich, E. (2019). Assessing
Mendoza Beltran, A., Cox, B., Mutel, C., van Vuuren, D. P., Font Vivanco, D., Deetman, S., electric vehicle policy with region-specific carbon footprints. Applied Energy. https://
Edelenbosch, O. Y., Guinée, J., & Tukker, A. (2020). When the background matters: doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113923
Using scenarios from integrated assessment models in prospective life cycle Wu, Z., Wang, M., Zheng, J., Sun, X., Zhao, M., & Wang, X. (2018). Life cycle greenhouse
assessment. Journal of Industrial Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12825 gas emission reduction potential of battery electric vehicle. Journal of Cleaner
Messagie, M., Boureima, F.-S., Coosemans, T., Macharis, C., & Mierlo, J. (2014). A range- Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.036
based vehicle life cycle assessment incorporating variability in the environmental Wu, Y., & Zhang, L. (2017). Can the development of electric vehicles reduce the emission
assessment of different vehicle technologies and fuels. Energies, 7, 1467–1482. of air pollutants and greenhouse gases in developing countries? Transportation
https://doi.org/10.3390/en7031467 Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 51, 129–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Nordelöf, A., Messagie, M., Tillman, A. M., Ljunggren Söderman, M., & Van Mierlo, J. trd.2016.12.007
(2014). Environmental impacts of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and battery electric Yang, L., Yu, B., Yang, B., Chen, H., Malima, G., & Wei, Y.-M. (2021). Life cycle
vehicles—what can we learn from life cycle assessment? International Journal of Life environmental assessment of electric and internal combustion engine vehicles in
Cycle Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0788-0 China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 285, 124899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Nordelöf, A., Romare, M., & Tivander, J. (2019). Life cycle assessment of city buses jclepro.2020.124899
powered by electricity, hydrogenated vegetable oil or diesel. Transportation Research Yazdanie, M., Noembrini, F., Dossetto, L., & Boulouchos, K. (2014). A comparative
Part D: Transport and Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.08.019 analysis of well-to-wheel primary energy demand and greenhouse gas emissions for
Onat, N. C., Kucukvar, M., & Tatari, O. (2015). Conventional, hybrid, plug-in hybrid or the operation of alternative and conventional vehicles in Switzerland, considering
electric vehicles? State-based comparative carbon and energy footprint analysis in various energy carrier production pathways. Journal of Power Sources. https://doi.
the United States. Applied Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.04.001 org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.10.043
Onat, N. C., Kucukvar, M., & Tatari, O. (2018). Well-to-wheel water footprints of Zeng, Y., Tan, X., Gu, B., Wang, Y., & Xu, B. (2016). Greenhouse gas emissions of motor
conventional versus electric vehicles in the United States: A state-based comparative vehicles in Chinese cities and the implication for China’s mitigation targets. Applied
analysis. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Energy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06.130
jclepro.2018.09.010 Zhang, X., Liang, Y., Yu, E., Rao, R., & Xie, J. (2017). Review of electric vehicle policies
in China: Content summary and effect analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 70, 698–714.

15