Hazem Eltohamy , Lauran van Oers , Julia Lindholm , Marco Raugei , Kadambari Lokesh , Joris Baars , Jana Husmann , Nikolas Hill , Robert Istrate , Davis Jose , Fredrik Tegstedt , Antoine Beylot , Pascal Menegazzi , Jeroen Guinée , Bernhard Steubing
{"title":"回顾电动汽车生命周期评估的现行做法:统一方法的第一步","authors":"Hazem Eltohamy , Lauran van Oers , Julia Lindholm , Marco Raugei , Kadambari Lokesh , Joris Baars , Jana Husmann , Nikolas Hill , Robert Istrate , Davis Jose , Fredrik Tegstedt , Antoine Beylot , Pascal Menegazzi , Jeroen Guinée , Bernhard Steubing","doi":"10.1016/j.spc.2024.10.026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>It is widely acknowledged that unharmonized methodological and data choices in life cycle assessments (LCAs) can limit comparability and complicate decision-making, ultimately hindering their effectiveness in guiding the rapid transition to electric mobility in Europe. The electric mobility sector aims to harmonize these assumptions and choices to improve comparability and better support decision-making. To support these efforts, this article aims to review the LCA practices across various sources in order to identify where key differences in assumptions, methodological approaches, and data selection occur in relevant LCA topics. In addition to this primary objective, we highlight certain practices that could serve as starting points for ongoing harmonization attempts, pointing out topics where it is challenging to do so. Our results showed that cradle-to-grave system boundary is the most commonly adopted in vehicle and traction battery LCAs, with maintenance and capital goods often excluded. The distance-based functional unit is dominant. Choices in Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) showed the greatest diversity and need for harmonization. Data quality and availability vary significantly by life cycle stage, with no standardized data collection approach in place. A lack of primary data is most prominent in the raw material acquisition and end of life (EoL) life cycle stages. Electricity consumption is a key topic in the EV sector, with major debates surrounding location-based versus market-based and static versus dynamic modeling. Multifunctionality problems are vaguely defined and resolved in the literature. For EoL multifunctionality, cut-off and avoided burden are prevalent, while allocation is common upstream. Impact assessments primarily follow the ReCiPe and CML-IA methods, with climate change, acidification, photochemical ozone formation, and eutrophication being the most reported impact categories. Systematic uncertainty propagation is rare in interpretations, with sensitivity analyses typically focusing on energy consumption, total mileage, and battery recycling rates. Overall, the review showed a big variation in assumptions and choices in EV LCA studies, particularly in the LCI stage. Among the discussed topics, we identified multifunctionality and electricity modeling as particularly contentious.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48619,"journal":{"name":"Sustainable Production and Consumption","volume":"52 ","pages":"Pages 299-313"},"PeriodicalIF":10.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Review of current practices of life cycle assessment in electric mobility: A first step towards method harmonization\",\"authors\":\"Hazem Eltohamy , Lauran van Oers , Julia Lindholm , Marco Raugei , Kadambari Lokesh , Joris Baars , Jana Husmann , Nikolas Hill , Robert Istrate , Davis Jose , Fredrik Tegstedt , Antoine Beylot , Pascal Menegazzi , Jeroen Guinée , Bernhard Steubing\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.spc.2024.10.026\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>It is widely acknowledged that unharmonized methodological and data choices in life cycle assessments (LCAs) can limit comparability and complicate decision-making, ultimately hindering their effectiveness in guiding the rapid transition to electric mobility in Europe. The electric mobility sector aims to harmonize these assumptions and choices to improve comparability and better support decision-making. To support these efforts, this article aims to review the LCA practices across various sources in order to identify where key differences in assumptions, methodological approaches, and data selection occur in relevant LCA topics. In addition to this primary objective, we highlight certain practices that could serve as starting points for ongoing harmonization attempts, pointing out topics where it is challenging to do so. Our results showed that cradle-to-grave system boundary is the most commonly adopted in vehicle and traction battery LCAs, with maintenance and capital goods often excluded. The distance-based functional unit is dominant. Choices in Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) showed the greatest diversity and need for harmonization. Data quality and availability vary significantly by life cycle stage, with no standardized data collection approach in place. A lack of primary data is most prominent in the raw material acquisition and end of life (EoL) life cycle stages. Electricity consumption is a key topic in the EV sector, with major debates surrounding location-based versus market-based and static versus dynamic modeling. Multifunctionality problems are vaguely defined and resolved in the literature. For EoL multifunctionality, cut-off and avoided burden are prevalent, while allocation is common upstream. Impact assessments primarily follow the ReCiPe and CML-IA methods, with climate change, acidification, photochemical ozone formation, and eutrophication being the most reported impact categories. Systematic uncertainty propagation is rare in interpretations, with sensitivity analyses typically focusing on energy consumption, total mileage, and battery recycling rates. Overall, the review showed a big variation in assumptions and choices in EV LCA studies, particularly in the LCI stage. Among the discussed topics, we identified multifunctionality and electricity modeling as particularly contentious.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48619,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sustainable Production and Consumption\",\"volume\":\"52 \",\"pages\":\"Pages 299-313\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":10.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sustainable Production and Consumption\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352550924003129\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sustainable Production and Consumption","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352550924003129","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Review of current practices of life cycle assessment in electric mobility: A first step towards method harmonization
It is widely acknowledged that unharmonized methodological and data choices in life cycle assessments (LCAs) can limit comparability and complicate decision-making, ultimately hindering their effectiveness in guiding the rapid transition to electric mobility in Europe. The electric mobility sector aims to harmonize these assumptions and choices to improve comparability and better support decision-making. To support these efforts, this article aims to review the LCA practices across various sources in order to identify where key differences in assumptions, methodological approaches, and data selection occur in relevant LCA topics. In addition to this primary objective, we highlight certain practices that could serve as starting points for ongoing harmonization attempts, pointing out topics where it is challenging to do so. Our results showed that cradle-to-grave system boundary is the most commonly adopted in vehicle and traction battery LCAs, with maintenance and capital goods often excluded. The distance-based functional unit is dominant. Choices in Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) showed the greatest diversity and need for harmonization. Data quality and availability vary significantly by life cycle stage, with no standardized data collection approach in place. A lack of primary data is most prominent in the raw material acquisition and end of life (EoL) life cycle stages. Electricity consumption is a key topic in the EV sector, with major debates surrounding location-based versus market-based and static versus dynamic modeling. Multifunctionality problems are vaguely defined and resolved in the literature. For EoL multifunctionality, cut-off and avoided burden are prevalent, while allocation is common upstream. Impact assessments primarily follow the ReCiPe and CML-IA methods, with climate change, acidification, photochemical ozone formation, and eutrophication being the most reported impact categories. Systematic uncertainty propagation is rare in interpretations, with sensitivity analyses typically focusing on energy consumption, total mileage, and battery recycling rates. Overall, the review showed a big variation in assumptions and choices in EV LCA studies, particularly in the LCI stage. Among the discussed topics, we identified multifunctionality and electricity modeling as particularly contentious.
期刊介绍:
Sustainable production and consumption refers to the production and utilization of goods and services in a way that benefits society, is economically viable, and has minimal environmental impact throughout its entire lifespan. Our journal is dedicated to publishing top-notch interdisciplinary research and practical studies in this emerging field. We take a distinctive approach by examining the interplay between technology, consumption patterns, and policy to identify sustainable solutions for both production and consumption systems.