CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 555Electric Vehicles and InfrastructureEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityElectric and Hybrid Vehicle Technologies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 118 of the 119 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Environmental impacts of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and battery electric vehicles—what can we learn from life cycle assessment?

Open access
Nordelöf, Anders, Messagie, Maarten, Tillman, Anne-Marie, Ljunggren Söderman, Maria, Van Mierlo, Joeri·2014·The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
DOI 10.1007/s11367-014-0788-0
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The purpose of this review article is to investigate the usefulness of different types of life cycle assessment (LCA) studies of electrified vehicles to provide robust and relevant stakeholder information. It presents synthesized conclusions based on 79 papers. Another objective is to search for explanations to divergence and “complexity” of results found by other overviewing papers in the research field, and to compile methodological learnings. The hypothesis was that such divergence could be explained by differences in goal and scope definitions of the reviewed LCA studies. The review has set special attention to the goal and scope formulation of all included studies. First, completeness and clarity have been assessed in view of the ISO standard’s (ISO 2006a , b ) recommendation for goal definition. Secondly, studies have been categorized based on technical and methodological scope, and searched for coherent conclusions. Comprehensive goal formulation according to the ISO standard (ISO 2006a , b ) is absent in most reviewed studies. Few give any account of the time scope, indicating the temporal validity of results and conclusions. Furthermore, most studies focus on today’s electric vehicle technology, which is under strong development. Consequently, there is a lack of future time perspective, e.g., to advances in material processing, manufacturing of parts, and changes in electricity production. Nevertheless, robust assessment conclusions may still be identified. Most obvious is that electricity production is the main cause of environmental impact for externally chargeable vehicles. If, and only if, the charging electricity has very low emissions of fossil carbon, electric vehicles can reach their full potential in mitigating global warming. Consequently, it is surprising that almost no studies make this stipulation a main conclusion and try to convey it as a clear message to relevant stakeholders. Also, obtaining resources can be observed as a key area for future research. In mining, leakage of toxic substances from mine tailings has been highlighted. Efficient recycling, which is often assumed in LCA studies of electrified vehicles, may reduce demand for virgin resources and production energy. However, its realization remains a future challenge. LCA studies with clearly stated purposes and time scope are key to stakeholder lessons and guidance. It is also necessary for quality assurance. LCA practitioners studying hybrid and electric vehicles are strongly recommended to provide comprehensive and clear goal and scope formulation in line with the ISO standard (ISO 2006a , b ).

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11367-014-0788-0

Cites

118 of 118 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 119 references

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Edwards R, Larivé J-F, Beziat J-C (2011a) Well-to-wheels analysis of future automotive and powertrains in the European context—well-to-wheels report version 3C. EUR—scientific and technical research series. July, 2011a: ISSN 1831–9424. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. (ISBN 978-92-79-21395-3, reported by Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, EUCAR and CONCAWE) doi: 10.2788/79018 · DOI
  2. Edwards R, Larivé J-F, Beziat J-C (2011b) Well-to-wheels analysis of future automotive and powertrains in the European context—well-to-wheels appendix 2 version 3C, WTW GHG-emissions of externally chargeable electric vehicles. EUR—scientific and technical research series. July, 2011b: ISSN 1831–9424. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. (ISBN 978-92-79-21395-3, reported by Joint Research Centre of the European Commission, EUCAR and CONCAWE) doi: 10.2788/79018 · DOI
  3. Goedkoop MJ, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, De Schryver A, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2012) ReCiPe 2008, A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level—Report I: characterisation. First (revised) edn. VROM, The Netherlands
  4. Graedel TE, Allwood J, Birat J-P, Buchert M, Hagelüken C, Reck BK, Sibley SF, Sonnemann G (2011) What do we know about metal recycling rates? J Ind Ecol 15(3):355–366 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Hawkins TR, Singh B, Majeau-Bettez G, Strømman AH (2013b) Corrigendum to: Hawkins, T. R., B. Singh, G. Majeau-Bettez, and A. H. Strømman. 2012. Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles. J Ind Ecol 17(1):158–160
  6. IAE (2011) Technology Roadmap—electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. June, 2011. International Energy Agency, OECD/IEA, France
  7. ISO (2006a) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework, ISO 14040:2006. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
  8. ISO (2006b) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines, ISO 14044:2006. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva
  9. Kudoh Y, Nansai K, Kondo Y, Tahara K (2007) Life cycle CO2 emissions of FCEV, BEV and GV in actual use. Paper presented at the 23rd International Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Symposium & Exposition, Anaheim, California, 2–5 Dec
  10. Messagie M (2013) Environmental performance of electric vehicles, a life cycle system approach. Thesis for the award of the degree of Doctor in engineering, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium
  11. Samaras C, Meisterling K (2008b) Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from plug-in hybrid vehicles: implications for policy—supporting Online Information. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. (Supporting Information for Environmental Science & Technology) · DOI
  12. Tahara K, Sinha S, Sakamoto R, Kojima T, Taneda K, Funasaki A, Ohtaki T, Inaba A (2001) Comparison of CO2 emissions from alternative and conventional vehicles. World Resour Rev 13(1):52–60

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–555 of 555

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Nordelöf, A., Messagie, M., Tillman, A.-M., Ljunggren Söderman, M., & Van Mierlo, J.
Affiliations
  • Chalmers University of Technology (SE)
  • Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
Corresponding author
Nordelöf, Anders
ORCID
Venue
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2014-08-21
Volume
19
Issue
11
Pages
1866-1890
ISSN
  • 0948-3349 (ISSN-L)
  • 1614-7502
DOI
10.1007/s11367-014-0788-0
OpenAlex
W2012453053
Cited by
543
References
119
Citations by year
2026: 36 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 73 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 54 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 26 · 2014: 2
FWCI
17.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Update notices
correction (2015-11-26)
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Chalmers Publication Library (Chalmers University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • Chalmers Research (Chalmers University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Electric Vehicles and Infrastructure
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Automotive Engineering › Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Technologies
Keywords
hybrid electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, battery electric vehicles, environmental impact, goal and scope definition, resource consumption, mine tailings, vehicle recycling, stakeholder communication

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review