Separation and Purification Technology 301 (2022) 122063

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Separation and Purification Technology

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

Life cycle carbon footprint of electric vehicles in different countries:

A review
Xiaoning Xia a, d, Pengwei Li b, *, Zhenguo Xia c, Rui Wu a, Yang Cheng d, *
a
School of Economics and Business Administration, Chongqing University, Chongqing 400030, PR China
b
School of Materials Science and Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang 110819, PR China
c
Department of Physics, College of Science, Shihezi University, Xinjiang 832003, PR China
d
Department of Materials and Production, Center for Industrial Production, Aalborg University, Aalborg 9220, Denmark

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

Keywords: Facing with upward pressure on carbon emissions from the transportation sector, governments actively promote
Life cycle assessment the automation and electrification of the transportation industry, and intelligent electric vehicles (EVs) are
Carbon footprint ushering in their golden age. However, the debate over whether EVs are lower carbon than traditional internal
Electric vehicles
combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) has never stopped. To objectively evaluate the role of EVs in mitigating
Internal combustion engine vehicles
climate change and carbon emissions, this study provides an extensive review of the literature on the life cycle
carbon footprint of various EVs, and compares the carbon emissions of EVs and ICEVs. Considering that the
carbon emissions of EVs vary significantly geographically due to differences in the power mix, ambient tem­
perature, and driving conditions, this review further compares the carbon emission reduction effects of deploying
EVs in different countries. The results show that the life cycle carbon footprint of EVs is lower than that of ICEVs,
despite the higher carbon emissions from battery production. According to the power generation situation of
each country, countries dominated by renewable energy power generation are more suitable for adopting EVs,
while in countries with a predominantly coal-fired power generation, the popularization of EVs should be
accompanied by a focus on decarbonization of the electricity sector and infrastructure improvements. Overall,
improving the production technology of EVs and increasing the proportion of clean energy generation will be
helpful to achieve the decarbonization goal in the transportation sector.

1. Introduction Specifically, China’s EV sales reached 3.3 million, tripling from 2020.
EV sales in Europe reached 2.3 million, an increase of two-thirds year-
CO2 emissions from the global transport sector have continued to rise on-year. EV sales in the U.S. have more than doubled from 2020 to reach
in recent years, from 5.8 GT in 2000 to 8.2 GT in 2018, with road ve­ 630,000. Sales in China, Europe and the U.S. accounted for more than
hicles contributing about three-quarters [1]. To reduce carbon emissions 95 % of total global EV sales (see Fig. 1b-e) [3].
from transport, the UK has set a ban on the sale of new internal com­ Although EVs do not directly generate carbon emissions during
bustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) from 2035, and the EU and Canada have driving, they transfer carbon emissions to upstream fuel (electricity)
announced similar targets. China is currently at the center of the tran­ production. Not only that, the carbon emissions of EVs from raw ma­
sition from ICEVs to electric vehicles (EVs), and its goals for improving terial procurement, battery production, recycling and disposal cannot be
fuel economy and the share of low-emission vehicles are advancing [2]. ignored. Therefore, whether EVs have carbon emission reduction po­
With the active promotion of various governments, global EV sales in tential needs to be examined from the perspective of whole life cycle. For
2021 doubled from 2020 to a new record of 6.6 million (see Fig. 1a). this reason, many studies estimated the carbon emissions of EVs using

Abbreviations: BEVs, Battery electric vehicles; CCS, Carbon dioxide capture and storage; EREVs, Extended range electric vehicles; EVs, Electric vehicles; FCEVs,
Fuel cell electric vehicles; GHG, Greenhouse gas; GWP, Global warming potential; HEVs, Hybrid electric vehicles; ICEVs, Internal combustion engine vehicles; LCA,
Life cycle assessment; LFP, Lithium iron phosphate; NMC, Lithium nickel cobalt oxide; PHEVs, Plug-in hybrid electric vehicles; TTW, Tank to wheel; WTT, Well to
tank; WTW, Well to wheel.
* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Li), [email protected] (Y. Cheng).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2022.122063
Received 8 July 2022; Received in revised form 23 August 2022; Accepted 31 August 2022
Available online 5 September 2022
1383-5866/© 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
X. Xia et al. Separation and Purification Technology 301 (2022) 122063

life cycle assessment (LCA) and compared them with conventional and recycling EVs will further reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
ICEVs. Based on several articles published between 2019 and 2021, [7]. However, some other studies concluded that EVs may have higher
Wang and Tang [1] compared the carbon emissions of EVs and ICEVs. carbon emissions than ICEVs [8–10]. In India, the carbon emissions of an
The results showed that existing studies have not reached a consensus on EV are about 40 % higher than those of an ICEV [9]. The above con­
the carbon reduction benefits of EVs (see Table 1). Several studies tradictory results may be due to the different choices of system bound­
showed that the life cycle carbon emission of EVs is lower than that of aries, functional units, and vehicle types in available studies.
ICEVs, and promoting EVs is an effective measure to reduce CO2 emis­ Additionally, the driving environment, grid carbon intensity, battery
sions in transportation [4–7]. Reducing the carbon intensity of the grid and vehicle lifetime also affect the carbon footprint of EVs, leading to

Fig. 1. EV sales and market share from 2010 to 2020: (a) Global, (b) China, (c) USA, (d) EU, (e) Other countries.

2
X. Xia et al. Separation and Purification Technology 301 (2022) 122063

Table 1 Table 2
Studies taking the standpoint of whether EVs are cleaner or not [1]. Reviews of EV life cycle environmental impacts.
Year Author CO2 of EVs (g CO2 of ICEVs (g Standpoint Year Author Focus Main conclusions
CO2-eq/km) CO2-eq/km)
2017 Rita Garcia Energy and Electricity generation
2021 Nimesh V [11] 187 215 YES [20] environmental impacts source has a large impact
2021 Petrauskiene K 212 159 NO on the GHG emissions of
[12] electrified fleet.
2020 Koroma MS [13] 170 213 YES 2022 Nenming Life phases and In the production phase,
2020 Liu Y [14] 244 92 NO Wang [1] environmental efficiency EVs and hybrid electric
2020 Qiao QY [15] 253 340 YES vehicles (HEVs) emit
2020 Petrauskiene K 142 104 NO higher CO2 than those of
[8] gasoline ICEVs. However,
2019 Kim S [16] 100 170 YES in the WTW phase and
2019 Cusenza MA 240 180 NO entire life cycle, the CO2
[17] emissions of EVs are lower
2019 Shen W [18] 163 199 YES than gasoline ICEVs.
2019 Almeida A [19] 141 193 YES 2017 Weeberb J. CO2 emissions of PHEVs The promotion of PHEVs
Requia [21] in eight Canadian cities should be combined with
clean generation to reduce
very different conclusions. To evaluate the carbon emissions of EVs more CO2 emissions.
objectively, it is necessary to consider various possible influencing fac­ 2020 Iulia Resource use EVs consume higher
Dolganova mineral and metal
tors and systematically review the relevant research on the life cycle [22] resources than ICEVs.
carbon footprint of EVs. 2018 Benedetta Electricity generation The carbon intensity of the
Currently, some articles have reviewed the environmental impacts of Marmiroli power mix can explain 70
EVs. Garcia and Freire [20] reviewed the potential of EVs to reduce fleet [23] % of the variability of the
results.
environmental impact and found that the electricity generation source
2020 Selman End‑of‑life vehicle End-of-life vehicle
has a large impact on the electrified fleet GHG emissions. Wang and Karagoz [26] management management is essential
Tang [1] compared the carbon emissions of EVs and ICEVs and found for environmental
that EVs emit higher carbon in the production phase, but their carbon conservation, circular
emissions throughout the life cycle are lower than gasoline ICEVs. economy, and sustainable
development.
Requia et al. [21] proposed that the promotion of plug-in hybrid electric 2012 Troy R. Environmental impacts of The global warming
vehicles (PHEVs) in eight Canadian cities should be combined with Hawkins [24] EVs, life phase, power potential (GWP) of EVs
renewable power generation to significantly reduce CO2 emissions. mix, battery, and vehicle powered by coal electricity
Additionally, some other reviews explored the environmental impact of life falls between small and
large conventional
EVs in terms of resource use, life cycle inventory databases, battery and
vehicles, while EVs
vehicle lifetime [22–25] (see Table 2). We noticed that differences in powered by natural gas or
system boundaries, functional units, and vehicle types affect the carbon low-carbon energy sources
emissions of EVs, and GHG emission reduction of EVs varies greatly perform better than the
geographically due to the differences in the power structure, ambient most efficient ICEVs.
2020 Matthias Impacts of life cycle The advantage of an LCA
temperature, and driving conditions. However, less literature has sys­ Kalverkamp inventory databases for EVs may depend on the
tematically summarized this. Therefore, this article attempts to review [25] life cycle inventory
the life cycle carbon footprint of various EVs in different countries and database.
summarize the existing studies in terms of system boundaries, functional 2013 Shrey Verma Environmental impacts of GHG has decreased with
[27] EVs and ICEVs the adoption of EVs, but
units, and research methods. This review not only supplements the
human toxicity levels have
existing reviews but also provides references (e.g., research methods, increased.
perspectives, focus, precautions, etc.) for subsequent studies on the 2019 Ricardo Faria Electricity mix and use Improved battery
carbon footprint of EVs. In addition, this study has practical implications [28] profile technology and power
for the large-scale deployment of EVs in different countries and regions, combinations contribute to
the sustainability of EVs.
reducing carbon emissions in transportation, and achieving carbon 2020 Aritra Ghosh Vehicle type and grid The GHG saving potential
neutrality targets. [29] combination of EVs is controversial
The outline of this review is as follows: Section 2 briefly introduces when the electricity comes
the concepts of LCA and carbon footprint and the methodology of this from fossil fuel generation.
review. In Section 3, we compare the carbon footprints of EVs and ICEVs
at different life stages and the whole life cycle from a country’s
assessment, and interpretation [30]. Currently, LCA has been widely
perspective and summarize the differences in carbon emissions of EVs
used in clean production, green manufacturing, and product eco-design
currently in China, the U.S., and the EU, and other countries. Based on
[31]. From the methodological point of view, LCA covers multiple life
these comparisons and analyses, conclusions and recommendations are
phases and various environmental impact evaluation indicators, which
proposed in Section 4. Finally, we illustrate the knowledge gaps in this
can effectively avoid the transfer of environmental problems between
review and take a look at the future of EVs in Section 5.
these phases or between impact types. In addition, the unified interna­
tional standards (ISO14040 series) have laid a solid foundation for the
2. Concepts and methodology
wide application of LCA. However, before applying LCA to research, its
potential limitations cannot be ignored. Firstly, LCA requires a large
2.1. Overview of LCA and carbon footprint
amount of basic data, but the actual available data is often limited. For
this reason, researchers need to obtain data based on typical production
LCA is a method used to assess the environmental aspects and po­
processes, national averages, engineering estimates of the process or
tential impacts associated with a product (or service). According to the
professional judgment, and to minimize bias in the research results.
ISO standard, a complete LCA requires the completion of the following
Secondly, the selection of system boundaries is highly subjective in the
four steps: goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, impact

3
X. Xia et al. Separation and Purification Technology 301 (2022) 122063

goal and scope definition stage. Although the boundary selection at 2.2. Methodology
different levels is not inherently right or wrong, the boundary selection
will have a great impact on the LCA results. Therefore, researchers To summarize the carbon emissions of various EVs in different
should choose appropriate system boundaries according to the research countries as comprehensively and accurately as possible, we firstly
content and existing literature. Finally, environmental impacts vary by collected literature on the LCA of EVs and ICEVs, and then classified
location and time, and LCA is a static rather than a dynamic approach. them by country. Furthermore, the carbon footprint of EVs in different
Therefore, it is better to select more recent data and fully consider countries is analyzed from the perspectives of life stages, grid mix, and
geographical characteristics when using LCA for environmental impact battery chemistry. The specific methodology is as follows:
analysis.
In the automotive industry, the LCA of a vehicle generally consists of Step 1: Definition of keywords
two cycles: the vehicle life cycle and the fuel life cycle [32], see Fig. 2
[27]. The vehicle life cycle is divided into cradle to gate, cradle to grave, The keywords used for the literature search included a combination
and cradle to cradle. If the focus is only on the manufacturing stage of of synonyms of the terms “Electric Vehicles” (“EVs”) and “Life Cycle
the product and not on its use and disposal stage, the boundary is cradle Assessment” (“LCA”, “Life Cycle Analysis”) or “Carbon Footprint”
to gate; if the focus is to be on the product from raw material extraction, (“Carbon Emissions”, “CO2 Emissions”).
processing, manufacturing, use, maintenance, etc. until final disposal,
the boundary is cradle to grave; in some cases, the boundary is cradle to Step 2: Selection of database
cradle if the post-waste product is recycled and remanufactured. The
fuel life cycle is divided into well to tank (WTT), tank to wheel (TTW), An online search was performed in Web of Science, Science Direct,
and well to wheel (WTW). WTT refers to the process of converting pri­ Scopus, Google Scholar, Springer Link, and Wiley Online Library.
mary energy into vehicle fuel, while TTW is the process of converting
vehicle fuel into power, WTT and TTW are collectively referred to as Step 3: Literature search and collection
WTW [27].
Giljum et al. [33] and Stoeglehner and Narodoslawsky [34] were the After entering the keywords in the main database, we set the filters
first to independently propose the term of “footprint family”. Later, Galli for the file types to “Articles” and “Reviews”. Additionally, references in
et al. [35,36] integrated footprint indicators such as ecological, carbon, the literature identified were used to locate new literature. For the
and water footprint into one footprint family [37]. Recently, with the collected articles, we read their titles and abstracts and excluded articles
increase of global warming, carbon footprint has gradually received that were not very relevant to the stated topic. Finally, the articles are
wide attention from academics. Carbon footprint refers to the direct and categorized by countries and regions.
indirect CO2-eq emissions from an activity [38], or the total amount of
CO2 and other GHG emissions produced by a process or product during Step 4: Literature review
its life cycle [39,40].
After a careful reading of the full articles, the literature was reviewed

Fig. 2. The life cycle of fuel and vehicles [27].

4
X. Xia et al. Separation and Purification Technology 301 (2022) 122063

from the perspective of the country and life phase, then the conclusions Table 3
and recommendations were presented. Based on the results, an outlook Studies on the life cycle carbon footprint of EVs in China.
on the development of EVs was proposed. Year Functional System Method Main Reference
unit boundary conclusion
3. Carbon footprint of EVs in different countries 2019 – Cradle to GREET BEVs produce [6]
grave lower CO2
Looking at the global EV market, China, Europe, and the United emissions per
States account for nearly two-thirds of the global EV market, and their kilometer from
cradle to grave
combined EV sales contribute 95 % of total global EV sales in 2021. than ICEVs.
Although EVs account for less than 0.5 % of total sales in large econo­ 2017 Per vehicle Cradle to GREET CO2 emissions [47]
mies such as Brazil, India, and Indonesia, EV sales in these countries gate from the EV
continue to grow [3]. Therefore, while focusing on the carbon footprint production
stage are 14.6
of EVs in China, the United States, and the European Union, this review
to 14.7 tons,
also appropriately analyzes the carbon emissions of EVs in other coun­ 59 % to 60 %
tries. Specifically, this article reviews the carbon emission research of higher than
EVs in various countries in the world from the perspectives of life phase, ICEV’s 9.2
power mix, battery chemistry, and operating environment, and pays tons.
2020 WTW GREET Under the [15]
attention to the effects of research methods, functional units, and system
–
Cradle to Beijing driving
boundaries. Furthermore, the carbon footprints of EVs in major sales grave cycle in 2020,
countries such as China, the United States, and the European Union are the GHG
summarized and sorted out, see Tables 3, 4, and 5. Compared with the emissions of
EVs in the
existing reviews, the analytical perspective of this review is more
whole life
comprehensive, which will provide reliable references for future cycle are about
research on the carbon footprint of EVs and directions for optimizing 29 % lower
and improving EV development strategies in countries around the than that of
world. ICEVs.
2018 250,000 km Cradle to CML2001 Under China’s [5]
grave energy-saving
3.1. Carbon footprint of EVs in China policies and
actual
3.1.1. Perspective of life cycle emission
reduction
In the production phase, EVs emit higher GHG than ICEVs [41].
technologies,
Material preparation and battery production are the main contributors, the CO2
accounting for 59 % and 23 % of CO2 emissions in the BEV production emissions of
phase, and 66 % and 12 % of CO2 emissions in the PHEV production EVs are
phase [42]. In the WTW phase, an average battery electric vehicle (BEV) significantly
lower than
has 35 % lower GHG emissions than those of an average gasoline vehicle those of
[43]. Further comparing GHG emissions of EVs in the two cases of no gasoline
recycling and full recycling, it was found that recycling can reduce vehicles, and
carbon emissions by 34 %, of which the recycling of steel, aluminum, the
optimization of
and power battery cathode materials accounts for 61 %, 13 % and 20 %
the power
of the total reduction, respectively [44]. Furthermore, direct physical structure can
recycling has the greatest potential to reduce GHG emissions compared reduce GWP by
to recycling batteries with pyrometallurgy and hydrometallurgy [45]. In 15 %.
the whole life cycle, the CO2 emissions of ICEV, BEV, and PHEV are 2018 150,000 km WTW GREET The electricity [57]
Cradle to mix and the
33.0–35.5 t, 26.8–29.3 t, and 33.1–34.7 t. If CO2 emissions are estimated grave power
in g/km (average emissions per kilometer during the vehicle life cycle), consumption
the CO2 emissions of the above three types of vehicles are 220–236 g/ of BEVs during
km, 179–195 g/km, and 220–231 g/km [42]. Based on China’s elec­ use are
important
tricity generation and transmission in 2017, CO2 emissions per km of
parameters
BEVs are about 71 % of those of comparable ICEVs, and the average that influence
emissions per km of HEVs are between ICEVs and EVs [46]. In the the GHG
context of 2015, 2020, and 2030 power generation mixes in Hebei reduction
Province, China, the CO2 emissions from cradle-to-grave of ICEV are potential of
BEVs.
approximately 318 g/km, 286 g/km, and 230 g/km (on average), which 2019 150,000 km WTW GREET In 2015, the [7]
are significantly higher than those of EV [6]. Cradle to life cycle GHG
In summary, the large amount of energy and resources consumed in grave emissions of an
material preparation and battery production results in higher CO2 EV in China
were about 41 t
emissions in the production phase of EVs than conventional ICEVs.
CO2-eq, and in
However, effective recycling of EV batteries can bring benefits and 2020 this value
environmental credits, thereby mitigating carbon emissions in its pro­ dropped to
duction phase. As a result, life cycle carbon footprints of EVs tend to be 34.1 t CO2-eq,
lower than those of ICEVs. mainly due to
the reduction
of the
3.1.2. Perspective of battery chemistry electricity
Under current technology, the production of EVs powered by lithium (continued on next page)
nickel cobalt oxide (NMC) batteries and lithium iron phosphate (LFP)

5
X. Xia et al. Separation and Purification Technology 301 (2022) 122063

Table 3 (continued ) Table 3 (continued )

Year Functional System Method Main Reference Year Functional System Method Main Reference
unit boundary conclusion unit boundary conclusion

GHG emission 3–36 %. When

factor. power plants
2019 per unit Cradle to GREET The BEV [50] use CCS, the
mobility grave carbon reduction can
service footprint under increase to
a nationwide 60–70 %.
electricity mix 2020 – WTW GREET An average [43]
is 217.6 g CO2- BEV has 35 %
eq/km and lower WTW
ranges GHG emissions
between 104.4 than a gasoline
(Yunnan) and vehicle.
265.7
(Shandong) g
CO2-eq/km. batteries emit 14.6 t CO2 and 14.7 t CO2, which are 59 % and 60 %
2018 – WTW – Based on [58] higher than ICEV’s 9.2 t [47]. If CO2 emissions are estimated in g/km,
current
planning, the
the GWP of producing EVs powered by lithium manganese oxide (LMO)
GHG emissions batteries and LFP batteries are 40 g CO2-eq/km and 84 g CO2-eq/km,
of the whole with the production of LMO and LFP cells contributing 18 g CO2-eq/km
fleet will peak and 62 g CO2-eq/km, respectively [48]. Despite the higher carbon
in 2027, at the
emissions associated with the production of EVs, the life cycle carbon
level of around
1763 million emissions of NMC and LFP battery-powered EVs are still lower than
tons of CO2-eq. those of gasoline vehicles [5]. Given China’s current and near-future
2019 per driven WTW GREET Given China’s [49] power generation mix, the GHG emissions of BEVs driven by NMC and
distance (per Cradle to current and LFP are 15.95 % and 26.32 %, lower than those of PHEVs [49].
kilometers; grave near-term
per km) power
It can be seen that, as the core component of EVs, batteries have a
generation significant impact on the low-carbon performance of EVs. In addition,
mix, the GHG the differences in battery chemistry also make the performance of EV
emissions of carbon emissions very different. However, at present, it’s impossible to
BEVs driven by
determine which battery is better by directly comparing its lifecycle
NMC and LFP
are 15.95 % carbon emissions. To achieve sustainable development of EVs, contin­
and 26.32 % uous improvements in battery production technology and chemistry are
lower than needed.
those of
PHEVs,
respectively.
3.1.3. Impact of the power mix
2021 150,000 km Cradle to GREET BEVs and [42] Due to the different proportions of fossil fuels in the power mix of
grave PHEVs can provinces in China, the carbon footprint of BEVs varies widely across
reduce CO2 provinces [50]. In the Jing-Jin-Ji region, where the proportion of coal
emissions
power is high, CO2 emissions of PHEVs or BEVs in the WTW phase are
compared to
ICEVs. higher than those of HEVs [51]. Applying carbon dioxide capture and
2021 g CO2-eq/ WTW TLCAM Since the [41] storage (CCS) technology to power plants can alleviate the high carbon
km Cradle to production emissions of coal-powered EVs to some extent [41,52]. In the Pearl-
grave process of EVs River-Delta region with a high share of the clean power mix, the pro­
emits more
GHG than
motion of BEV has significant CO2 reduction benefits [51]. Focusing on
ICEVs, if only the whole country, the life cycle GHG emissions of EVs in China are
the vehicle about 41 t CO2-eq in 2015, and this value dropped to 34.1 t CO2-eq by
cycle is 2020, mainly due to the reduction of electricity GHG emission factor [7].
considered, the
At the same time, the GWP of EVs in Hong Kong is also decreasing as the
GHG emission
reduction share of renewable energy generation increases, and EVs with the 2050
effect of EVs Hong Kong power mix will achieve the smallest GWP (15,712 kg CO2-
will be eq) [53].
reduced. When It can be seen that the power mix used for battery charging has a
both vehicle
and fuel cycle
significant impact on the carbon emissions of EVs [54]. If coal-fired
are considered, power is used, increasing the penetration of EVs will lead to an in­
coal-fired EVs crease in GHG emissions; if renewable energy generation or natural gas
emit higher combined cycle power plants are used, GHG emissions from EVs are
GHG than
significantly reduced [55,56]. Therefore, improving the cleanliness of
gasoline ICEVs.
2010 g CO2-eq/ WTW The Compared to [52] the power structure and reducing the carbon emission factor of elec­
km Cradle to Tsinghua- gasoline tricity are of great significance for EVs to reduce GWP [5].
grave CA3EM vehicles, EVs
LCA using coal-
3.2. Carbon footprint of EVs in the United States
Model fired electricity
can reduce life-
cycle GHG 3.2.1. Perspective of life cycle
emissions by By comparing GHG emissions of EVs and ICEVs in the U.S. from 2018
to 2030, it was found that EVs emit less GHG than ICEVs during the

6
X. Xia et al. Separation and Purification Technology 301 (2022) 122063

Table 4 highest GHG emissions of six commercial vehicles of similar size and
Studies on life cycle carbon footprint of EVs in the U.S. performance (ICEV, HEV, PHEV, EREV, BEV, and FCV) sold in the
Year Functional System Method Main Reference United States, and HEVs achieve the lowest GHG emissions due to the
unit boundary conclusion high efficiency of the fuel cycle and vehicle cycle [32]. In summary,
2012 160,000 WTW GREET Advanced [32] although the carbon reduction potential of different types of EVs varies
miles Cradle to vehicle greatly at each life phase, the life cycle carbon emissions of these EVs are
(256,000 km) grave technologies, lower than those of ICEVs. Therefore, it is highly feasible to promote EVs
including EVs, in the United States at this time.
HEVs, and fuel
cell electric
vehicles 3.2.2. Impact of the power mix
(FCEVs), reduce Due to differences in marginal and average grid emissions, the dif­
energy use and ferences in life cycle carbon emissions between PHEVs and BEVs in the
emissions over
U.S. are estimated to be as high as 50 % [63]. EVs are considered the
the vehicle
lifecycle. least carbon-intensive vehicles in 24 states based on the average power
2008 1 km of Cradle to GREET Compared to [60] generation mix scenario. However, given the current and near-future
vehicle travel grave ICEVs, PHEVs marginal generation mix, it may not be wise to promote EVs at scale
in the United reduce GHG [64]. Moreover, delayed charging (i.e. starting at midnight) results in
States emissions by 32
%. However,
higher emissions in most cases due to the increased share of coal-fired
the PHEV generation [63]. Therefore, the difference in carbon intensity between
emission the average grid and the marginal grid leads to a large difference in
reduction carbon emissions of EVs, and the low-carbon power generation mix is
benefits are
more conducive to the promotion of EVs.
small when
compared to
traditional 3.2.3. Other influencing factors
hybrid vehicles. While the source of power generation is an important factor affecting
2015 1 km of Cradle to GREET Based on the [64] GHG emissions of EVs, the impact of ambient temperature on battery
vehicle travel grave average U.S.
charging and discharging efficiency cannot be ignored either. In areas
electricity
generation mix, with warm climates and cleaner grids, such as California and Florida,
EVs are the EVs can significantly reduce GHG relative to equivalent ICEVs. How­
least carbon- ever, in cold and polluting marginal power generation regions, EVs will
intensive
provide less GHG reduction benefits and may even increase emissions
vehicles in 24
states. [65]. Besides, factors such as battery cycle life and operating conditions
2016 – WTW IPCC While the [66] also affect the life cycle GHG emissions of EVs [66]. Under U.S. state-
intensity of level average driving conditions and a 30 % loss in battery capacity,
emissions from the battery degradation would result in an 11.5–16.2 % increase in
the operating
energy consumption and GHG emissions per km for EVs [67], and the
grid is an
important replacement of degraded batteries will further increase GHG emissions.
factor affecting In summary, the carbon emissions of EVs are affected by many factors,
the carbon such as ambient temperature, battery life and size, and road infra­
emissions of
structure. To realize the sustainable development of EVs, the operating
EVs, other
upstream
environment should be improved continuously.
factors, such as
material 3.3. Carbon footprint of EVs in the Europe Union
production,
operating
conditions,
3.3.1. Perspective of life cycle
battery life, and In Europe, the GWP in the ICEV production phase is 43 g CO2-eq/km,
climate, also while the GWP of EV in the production phase is 87–95 g CO2-eq/km.
have an impact Among them, battery manufacturing accounts for 35–41 %, electric
on GHG
motors account for 7–8 %, and other powertrain components, especially
emissions over
the vehicle’s inverters and battery cooling systems with high aluminum content, ac­
life cycle. count for 16–18 % [68]. In the use phase, BEVs emit half as much GHG
2022 The annual WTW The In most cases, [59] as ICEVs [69]. Recycling 1 kg of batteries is associated with a GWP of
distance TRACI EVs emit lower 158 g CO2-eq [70]. Thus, in a scenario with an average European elec­
traveled by 2.1 GHG than
one vehicle ICEVs.
tricity mix (34 % from renewables and 25 % from nuclear), the life cycle
(in km) from GWP of BEVs is 58.6 % of that produced by ICEVs. If the effects of
2018 to 2030 battery size and driving range are considered, HEVs with smaller bat­
teries showed a slightly higher impact than ICEVs over the same range of
driving distances. However, after driving 32,500 km, the GWP of HEVs
WTW stage [59]. In the use phase, PHEVs can reduce GHG emissions by
will be lower than that of the ICEVs [71].
38–41 % compared to ICEVs and 7–12 % compared to HEVs [60]. By
In general, similar to the situation in China and the United States, the
recycling valuable materials from spent batteries and using them in the
production of EVs in the EU emits higher CO2, but the life cycle carbon
manufacture of new batteries, the demand for resources can be miti­
footprint of EVs is lower than that of ICEVs. Besides, battery size and
gated to some extent, with significant carbon reduction benefits [61].
driving distances may contribute to the carbon footprint of EVs.
Specifically, recycling materials from pyrometallurgy can offset the
Therefore, in the process of actively deploying electric power, it is
environmental burden associated with LIB production, about 23 %
necessary to improve the production technology of batteries, and fully
reduction in GHG emissions [62]. In terms of life cycle, ICEVs have the
consider the impact of battery size, chemical properties, and the driving

7
X. Xia et al. Separation and Purification Technology 301 (2022) 122063

Table 5
Studies on life cycle carbon footprint of EVs in the EU.
Year Functional unit System Method Main conclusion Reference
boundary

2012 1 km driven under Cradle to GREET Assuming a lifetime of 150,000 km, the GWP of EVs powered by the current [68]
European average grave European electricity mix is reduced by 10 % to 24 % compared to diesel or
conditions gasoline ICEVs.
2018 150,000 km Cradle to – BEVs have the advantage of reducing the impact of climate change, and this [84]
grave advantage grows significantly as the share of renewable energy increases.
2016 1 km driven by one Cradle to CML 2001 The GHG emissions from the use phase of BEVs are about half that of ICEVs. [69]
vehicle (car) grave
2015 one kilometer (km) WTW IPCC GWP Under current technology conditions, gasoline vehicles produce the highest [72]
driven 100a GHGH emissions at about 300 g CO2-eq/km; compressed natural gas and
diesel hybrids and BEVs charged with the EU electricity mix generate the
lowest emissions, around 210 g CO2-eq/km.
2021 200,000 km Cradle to – PHEVs may be easier than BEVs to meet the automotive industry’s climate [73]
grave goals.
2016 180,000 km Cradle to ReCiPe Larger EVs emit higher lifecycle GHG than smaller conventional vehicles, but [85]
grave electric vehicle technology is still evolving and there are near- and long-term
opportunities to reduce their emissions.
2021 150,000 km Cradle to GREET The life-cycle GWP of an EV is about 60 % of that of an equivalent ICEV. [71]
grave ReCiPe
2019 1 passenger kilometer WTW CML 2001 The GWP of the production process of FCEVs and EVs is high, up to 50 %. [86]
(pkm) Cradle to However, based on a lifetime of 200,000 km, the GWP of EVs and FCEVs is 45
gate % and 35 % lower than that of ICEVs.
2013(Italy) 200 km at nominal full Cradle to CML2000 Compared to the hydrogen scenarios, BEVs perform better in the environment [87]
load grave in general.
2015(Italy) 150,000 km Cradle to IPCC Italy’s electricity is mainly produced by fossil fuel power plants, but EVs emit [4]
grave lower GHG than ICEVs.
2017(Belgium) 1 km driving distance Cradle to ReCiPe From HEVs, PHEVs, and extended range EVs (EREVs) to BEVs, the life cycle [88]
grave CO2 emissions of these vehicles are decreasing as the level of electrification
increases.
2010(Belgium) 230,500 km WTW IPCC Gasoline vehicles have the largest greenhouse effect, while BEVs have the least [89]
Cradle to environmental impact in all categories.
grave
2018(Poland and the 150,000 km Cradle to ReCiPe EVs in Poland and the Czech Republic have lower GHG emissions than ICEVs. [79]
Czech Republic) grave
2020(Lithuania) 1 km driving distance WTW ReCiPe BEVs based on the 2015 electricity mix produced 26 % and 47 % more GHG [8]
Cradle to emissions than ICEVs fueled by gasoline and diesel, respectively.
grave
2019(Germany) 1 km WTW ReCiPe BEVs achieve lower GWP than FCEVs (e.g. BEV: 1.40E-01 kg CO2-eq/km, [90]
Cradle to FCEV: 1.68E-01 kg CO2-eq/km)
grave

range of vehicles. infrastructure for the supply of EVs in Portugal is carbon-intensive [75],
but without the introduction of EVs in the Portuguese island of Flores in
3.3.2. Impact of the power mix the Azores, life cycle CO2 emissions will increase by 31 % in 2050
Assuming a vehicle life of 150,000 km, EVs powered by European compared to 2009; if 70 % of EVs are introduced in 2050, CO2 emissions
average electricity can reduce GWP by 20–24 % and 10–14 % compared will be reduced by 39 % [76]. In Germany, charging with photovoltaic
to gasoline ICEVs and diesel ICEVs. When powered by electricity from power can reduce the carbon emissions of EVs [77]. Based on the
natural gas, GHG emissions of EVs are reduced by 12 % compared to Netherlands’ electricity generation capacity in 2015, emissions from EV
gasoline ICEVs and are essentially the same as diesel ICEVs. If coal charging are lower than those of ICEVs or HEVs. However, if the elec­
power is used, the GWP generated by EVs is expected to be 17–27 % tricity comes from modern coal-fired power plants, EV and HEV emis­
higher than diesel ICEVs and gasoline ICEVs [68]. Consistent with the sions are comparable [78]. As 73 % of Poland’s electricity comes from
above research, Christian et al. [72] pointed out that under the current coal-fired power plants [71], the current and future environmental
technical conditions, compressed natural gas and diesel hybrids and burden of EVs in Poland is higher than in the Czech Republic [79].
BEVs charged with the EU electricity mix have significant GHG emission Contrary to the above studies, a few studies found that even powered by
reduction advantages, about 210 g CO2-eq/km, and the highest emission the most carbon-intensive electricity in Europe, EVs still have lower
(300 g CO2-eq/km) is caused by gasoline vehicles. A further comparison GHG emissions than conventional diesel vehicles. For example, in the
of the climate impacts of three kinds of EVs with different levels of countries with the highest GHG generation intensity (Poland and Ger­
electrification (HEVs, PHEVs, and BEVs) found that PHEVs may be many), BEVs have lower life cycle emissions than diesel vehicles [80].
easier than BEVs to meet the carbon reduction targets of the automotive Electricity in Italy is mainly produced by fossil fuel power plants, but
industry because appropriate-sized battery packs and fewer fuel re­ EVs emit less GHG than ICEVs [4].
quirements of PHEVs can reduce GHG emissions in the production phase In general, the use of EVs instead of petrol vehicles can reduce GHG
[73]. In summary, replacing traditional vehicles with EVs can reduce (about 60 %) in most EU member states [81]. However, for some EU
GHG emissions under the current and future power mix in Europe [74], countries, the introduction of EVs may not benefit at all [82]. According
and PHEVs may be more likely to achieve Europe’s transportation car­ to the actual power generation situation of European countries, France
bon reduction targets. and Norway are suitable for adopting EVs; countries such as Spain or
Portugal should strengthen the promotion policy of EVs; for Germany
3.3.3. Comparison of the carbon footprint of EVs in European countries and Netherlands that still have high-polluting power plants, to reduce
In Norway (where 97 % of electricity comes from renewable sour­ GHG emissions from the power and transport sectors, infrastructure
ces), the GWP of BEVs is reduced to 33 % relative to ICEVs [71]. The improvements and an increase in the share of renewable energy should

8
X. Xia et al. Separation and Purification Technology 301 (2022) 122063

take precedence over the spread of EVs [83]. further stimulate the carbon emission reduction potential of EVs and
alleviate the high carbon emission problem in transportation, it is
3.4. Carbon footprint of EVs in other countries necessary to improve the battery production technology, optimize the
power structure and establish the battery recycling market.
In India, where coal power is predominant, there is a reduction of Comparing the carbon footprint of EVs in different countries, it is
about 40 % embodied equivalent carbon in an ICEV compared to an EV found that factors such as power grid structure, traffic status, driving
[9]. In Korea, FCEVs have the lowest average WTW GHG emissions, patterns and road infrastructure result in large differences in the carbon
which are 35 % of ICEVs, 47 % of HEVs, and 63 % of EVs [91]. Assuming emissions of EVs in different countries. In countries where renewable
a total driving distance of 100,000 km, an electricity consumption rate energy is widely used to generate electricity, it is feasible to promote
of 0.119 kWh/km, and a charging/discharging efficiency of 70 %, the EVs. In countries with a high proportion of coal-fired power, EVs may
life cycle CO2 emissions of an EV in Japan are 3.6 t-C [92]. In Australia, have a high carbon burden. In addition, the carbon reduction benefits of
BEVs emit 90 % less GHG than PHEVs in New Zealand, and 40 % less EVs in warm regions are greater than in colder regions, and battery
GHG than FCEVs [93]. In Western Australia, compared to petrol vehi­ degradation and replacement will increase the carbon emissions of EVs.
cles, ethanol (E65), EVs and PHEVs could reduce GWP by 40 %, 29 %, Therefore, while actively deploying EVs, countries should fully consider
and 14 %, respectively [94]. Since GHG emissions are proportional to the actual driving conditions and create a favorable operating environ­
the consumption of fossil fuels, the GWP of gasoline vehicles in Brazil is ment for the sustainable development of EVs as much as possible.
quite large [95]. If EVs operating with smart grid systems are gradually
introduced into Brazil’s taxi fleet, the CO2 emissions of an electric fleet 5. Knowledge gaps and outlook
are 10 to 26 times lower than that of an engine-driven fleet [96].
Currently, the introduction of EVs in Brunei may result in higher GHG To search relevant literature as comprehensively as possible, we not
emissions than ICEVs. However, with the use of cleaner renewable en­ only combined and transformed keywords in the database but also
ergy sources and increased efficiency of power plants, EVs will be more traced the references of related articles. Even so, we may inevitably miss
environmentally competitive than conventional vehicles [10]. To some studies on EV life cycle carbon emissions. To this end, the work of
significantly reduce carbon emissions, the rollout of PHEVs across checking and filling the gaps needs to be continued. Furthermore, when
Canada should also be integrated with renewable power generation classifying and collating the relevant literature, we mainly focused on
[21]. the life phases of vehicles and the differences among countries. In the
In summary, considering the generation mix, traffic conditions, future, more attention could be paid to the impact of vehicle and battery
driving patterns, road infrastructure, and smart charging differences type, such as the size of vehicles and batteries, and the battery chem­
across countries, the GHG emissions effects of EVs are highly variable istry, to make the review more complete.
geographically [97]. Depending on the driving conditions in different Under the trend of technological progress and clean power genera­
countries, BEVs have a positive GHG emission reduction performance tion, the carbon emission of EVs in the whole life cycle will be signifi­
compared to ICEVs, with carbon emission reductions ranging from 30 % cantly lower than that of existing fuel-fired vehicles, and large-scale
to 95 % [97,98]. However, if the CO2 emissions from battery production deployment of EVs will reduce carbon emissions in transportation.
are significant, the life cycle CO2 emissions of BEVs may be greater than Looking ahead, the contribution of EVs to carbon emission reduction
those of ICEVs. When the lifetime driving range exceeds 160,000 km, may not be purely in the amount of ownership, but in the efficiency and
replacing the battery with a new one will further increase the CO2 frequency of use. Therefore, encouraging the use of EVs and increasing
emissions of BEVs [99]. In addition, differences in electricity mix result the proportion of electric vehicle mileage in road travel will help
in large differences in the carbon emissions of EVs across countries accelerate the carbon reduction process in transportation. In this regard,
[100]. In regions with a low share of coal power, EVs can significantly countries can consider associating the mileage of EVs with the charging
reduce GHG compared to conventional vehicles. However, in coal- tariffs. The more mileage, the cheaper the charging electricity price,
dominated regions, operating EVs offer limited emission reductions thereby stimulating the potential of users to purchase and use EVs.
and may even increase emissions [101]. Thus, the rollout of EVs is Further, it is possible to bind a unique carbon label to each electric
feasible in France and Brazil, barely feasible in China and India, and not vehicle when it leaves the factory, which records the carbon emissions in
feasible in Indonesia [11]. the whole process of vehicle production, owners of EVs that choose the
low-carbon label will receive a “discount” or “incentive” from the cost of
4. Conclusions charging. This kind of paid guidance for electric vehicle owners to
“voluntarily reduce emissions” will not only increase the penetration
To cope with high carbon emissions in transportation, countries and utilization of EVs but also introduce competition for electric vehicle
around the world are actively deploying EVs to replace traditional manufacturers, thereby alleviating the high carbon emission problem in
ICEVs. However, carbon emissions from EVs are highly variable the production stage of EVs. Overall, countries are accelerating the
geographically. Therefore, this article attempts to review the life cycle electrification of road transport, but at varying rates. In markets such as
carbon footprint of various EVs in different countries, to supplement the China, the European Union, and the United States, the development of
existing review, provide references for subsequent research on EV car­ EVs is relatively rapid; in many low- and middle-income countries, the
bon footprint, and further promote the electrification of transportation. development of EVs is more backward. Therefore, we still have a long
The main conclusions of this review are as follows: way to go to achieve the global rollout of EVs.
From a life cycle perspective, it is found that the high energy con­
sumption and emissions of material preparation and battery production CRediT authorship contribution statement
lead to higher carbon emissions in the production phase of EVs, even
higher than traditional ICEVs. In the use phase, grid carbon intensity is Xiaoning Xia: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
the main factor affecting the carbon emissions of EVs. EVs that use clean Writing – original draft. Pengwei Li: Formal analysis, Visualization.
energy to generate electricity have significant carbon emission reduc­ Zhenguo Xia: Visualization. Rui Wu: Investigation, Formal analysis.
tion benefits, while EVs powered by coal-fired power emit higher CO2. In Yang Cheng: Investigation, Formal analysis, Visualization.
the recycling phase, the recycling and reuse of spent batteries of EVs can
avoid the production of new batteries, thereby reducing carbon emis­ Declaration of Competing Interest
sions. In terms of the whole life cycle, most studies showed that EVs have
carbon emission reduction advantages compared to ICEVs. Therefore, to The authors declare that they have no known competing financial

9
X. Xia et al. Separation and Purification Technology 301 (2022) 122063

interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Environ. Sci. Technol. 53 (2019) 6063–6072, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
est.8b05264.
the work reported in this paper.
[19] A. Almeida, N. Sousa, J. Coutinho-Rodrigues, Quest for sustainability: Life-cycle
emissions assessment of electric vehicles considering newer Li-ion batteries,
Data availability Sustainability 11 (2019) 2366, https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082366.
[20] R. Garcia, F. Freire, A review of fleet-based life-cycle approaches focusing on
energy and environmental impacts of vehicles, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 79
No data was used for the research described in the article. (2017) 935–945, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.145.
[21] W.J. Requia, M.D. Adams, A. Arain, P. Koutrakis, M. Ferguson, Carbon dioxide
Acknowledgments emissions of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles: A life-cycle analysis in eight
Canadian cities, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 78 (2017) 1390–1396, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.105.
This work was financially supported by the Chinese Scholarship [22] I. Dolganova, A. Rödl, V. Bach, M. Kaltschmitt, M. Finkbeiner, A review of life
Council (Nos. 202206080061, 202206050119), Fundamental Research cycle assessment studies of electric vehicles with a focus on resource use,
Resources 9 (2020), https://doi.org/10.3390/resources9030032.
Funds for the Central Universities (No. N2123035). [23] B. Marmiroli, M. Messagie, G. Dotelli, J. Van Mierlo, Electricity generation in LCA
of electric vehicles: A review, Appl. Sci. 8 (2018) 1384, https://doi.org/10.3390/
Appendix A. Supplementary material app8081384.
[24] T.R. Hawkins, O.M. Gausen, A.H. Strømman, Environmental impacts of hybrid
and electric vehicles—a review, Int. J. Life Cycle Ass. 17 (2012) 997–1014,
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0440-9.
org/10.1016/j.seppur.2022.122063. [25] M. Kalverkamp, E. Helmers, A. Pehlken, Impacts of life cycle inventory databases
on life cycle assessments: A review by means of a drivetrain case study, J. Clean.
Prod. 269 (2020) 121329, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121329.
References [26] S. Karagoz, N. Aydin, V. Simic, End-of-life vehicle management: a comprehensive
review, J. Mater. Cycles Waste 22 (2020) 416–442, https://doi.org/10.1007/
[1] N. Wang, G. Tang, A review on environmental efficiency evaluation of new s10163-019-00945-y.
energy vehicles using life cycle analysis, Sustainability 14 (2022) 3371, https:// [27] S. Verma, G. Dwivedi, P. Verma, Life cycle assessment of electric vehicles in
doi.org/10.3390/su14063371. comparison to combustion engine vehicles: A review, Mater. Today Pro. 49
[2] IEA, World energy outlook 2021, (2021). https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/ass (2022) 217–222, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.01.666.
ets/4ed140c1-c3f3-4fd9-acae-789a4e14a23c/WorldEnergyOutlook2021.pdf. [28] R. Faria, P. Marques, P. Moura, F. Freire, J. Delgado, A.T. de Almeida, Impact of
[3] IEA, Global EV outlook 2022, (2022). https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets the electricity mix and use profile in the life-cycle assessment of electric vehicles,
/ad8fb04c-4f75-42fc-973a-6e54c8a4449a/GlobalElectricVehicleOutlook2022. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 24 (2013) 271–287, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
pdf. rser.2013.03.063.
[4] P. Girardi, A. Gargiulo, P.C. Brambilla, A comparative LCA of an electric vehicle [29] A. Ghosh, Possibilities and challenges for the inclusion of the electric vehicle (EV)
and an internal combustion engine vehicle using the appropriate power mix: the to reduce the carbon footprint in the transport sector: A review, Energies 13
Italian case study, Int. J. Life Cycle Ass. 20 (2015) 1127–1142, https://doi.org/ (2020) 2602, https://doi.org/10.3390/en13102602.
10.1007/s11367-015-0903-x. [30] Ineternational Organization for Standardization (ISO), Environmental
[5] A. Yu, Y. Wei, W. Chen, N. Peng, L. Peng, Life cycle environmental impacts and Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework, 2006. ISO
carbon emissions: A case study of electric and gasoline vehicles in China, 14040. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO; 2006.
Transport. Res. D-TR. E. 65 (2018) 409–420, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [31] P. Li, X. Xia, J. Guo, A review of the life cycle carbon footprint of electric vehicle
trd.2018.09.009. batteries, Sep. Purif. Technol. 296 (2022) 121389, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[6] S. Shi, H. Zhang, W. Yang, Q. Zhang, X. Wang, A life-cycle assessment of battery seppur.2022.121389.
electric and internal combustion engine vehicles: A case in Hebei Province, [32] L. Gao, Z.C. Winfield, Life cycle assessment of environmental and economic
China, J. Clean. Prod. 228 (2019) 606–618, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. impacts of advanced vehicles, Energies 5 (2012) 605–620, https://doi.org/
jclepro.2019.04.301. 10.3390/en5030605.
[7] Q. Qiao, F. Zhao, Z. Liu, X. He, H. Hao, Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of [33] F.H. S. Giljum, S. Lutter, Measuring natural resource use context, indicators and
electric vehicles in China: Combining the vehicle cycle and fuel cycle, Energy 177 EU policy processes, (2008).
(2019) 222–233, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.04.080. [34] G. Stoeglehner, M. Narodoslawsky, Implementing ecological footprinting in
[8] K. Petrauskienė, M. Skvarnavičiūtė, J. Dvarionienė, Comparative environmental decision-making processes, Land Use Policy 25 (2008) 421–431, https://doi.org/
life cycle assessment of electric and conventional vehicles in Lithuania, J. Clean. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.10.002.
Prod. 246 (2020) 119042, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119042. [35] A. Galli, T. Wiedmann, E. Ercin, D. Knoblauch, B. Ewing, S. Giljum, Integrating
[9] J. Das, Comparative life cycle GHG emission analysis of conventional and electric ecological, carbon and water footprint into a “footprint family” of indicators:
vehicles in India, Environ. Dev. Sustain. (2022), https://doi.org/10.1007/ Definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet, Ecol. Indic. 16
s10668-021-01990-0. (2012) 100–112, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.017.
[10] A.E.P. Abas, J. Yong, T.M.I. Mahlia, M.A. Hannan, Techno-economic analysis and [36] A. Galli, J. Weinzettel, G. Cranston, E. Ercin, A footprint family extended MRIO
environmental impact of electric vehicle, IEEE Access 7 (2019) 98565–98578, model to support Europe’s transition to a One Planet Economy, Sci. Total
https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2929530. Environ. 461–462 (2013) 813–818, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[11] V. Nimesh, R. Kumari, N. Soni, A.K. Goswami, V. Mahendra Reddy, Implication scitotenv.2012.11.071.
viability assessment of electric vehicles for different regions: An approach of life [37] K. Fang, R. Heijungs, G.R. de Snoo, Theoretical exploration for the combination of
cycle assessment considering exergy analysis and battery degradation, Energ. the ecological, energy, carbon, and water footprints: Overview of a footprint
Convers. Manage 237 (2021) 114104. family, Ecol. Indic. 36 (2014) 508–518, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[12] K. Petrauskienė, A. Galinis, D. Kliaugaitė, J. Dvarionienė, Comparative ecolind.2013.08.017.
environmental life cycle and cost assessment of electric, hybrid, and conventional [38] T. Wiedmann, J. Minx, A definition of carbon footprint, CC Pertsova, Ecolog. Eco.
vehicles in Lithuania, Sustainability 13 (2021) 957, https://doi.org/10.3390/ Res. Tre. 2 (2008) 55–65.
su13020957. [39] E.G. Hertwich, G.P. Peters, Carbon footprint of nations: A global, trade-linked
[13] M.S. Koroma, N. Brown, G. Cardellini, M. Messagie, Prospective environmental analysis, Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (2009) 6414–6420, https://doi.org/10.1021/
impacts of passenger cars under different energy and steel production scenarios, es803496a.
Energies 13 (2020) 6236, https://doi.org/10.3390/en13236236. [40] G.L. Baldo, M. Marion, M. Montani, S.O. Ryding, The carbon footprint
[14] Q.J. Liu, Y. Xu, H. Liu, J. Chen Y, Optimal vehicle size and driving condition for measurement toolkit for the EU Ecolabel, Int. J. Life Cycle Ass. 14 (2009)
extended-range electric vehicles in China: A life cycle perspective, PLoS ONE 15 591–596, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-009-0115-3.
(2020) e0241967. [41] T. Peng, S. Zhou, Z. Yuan, X. Ou, Life cycle greenhouse gas analysis of multiple
[15] Q. Qiao, F. Zhao, Z. Liu, H. Hao, X. He, S.V. Przesmitzki, A.A. Amer, Life cycle vehicle fuel pathways in China, Sustainability 9 (2017) 2183, https://doi.org/
cost and GHG emission benefits of electric vehicles in China, Transport. Res. D- 10.3390/su9122183.
TR. E. 86 (2020) 102418, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2020.102418. [42] L. Yang, B. Yu, B. Yang, H. Chen, G. Malima, Y.M. Wei, Life cycle environmental
[16] S. Kim, R.E.O. Pelton, T.M. Smith, J. Lee, J. Jeon, K. Suh, Environmental assessment of electric and internal combustion engine vehicles in China, J. Clean.
implications of the national power roadmap with policy directives for battery Prod. 285 (2021), 124899, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124899.
electric vehicles (BEVs), Sustainability 11 (2019) 6657, https://doi.org/10.3390/ [43] Y. Zheng, X. He, H. Wang, M. Wang, S. Zhang, D. Ma, B. Wang, Y. Wu, Well-to-
su11236657. wheels greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions from battery electric vehicles
[17] M.A. Cusenza, S. Bobba, F. Ardente, M. Cellura, F. Di Persio, Energy and in China, Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Gl. 25 (2020) 355–370, https://doi.org/10.1007/
environmental assessment of a traction lithium-ion battery pack for plug-in s11027-019-09890-5.
hybrid electric vehicles, J. Clean. Prod. 215 (2019) 634–649, https://doi.org/ [44] H. Hao, Q. Qiao, Z. Liu, F. Zhao, Impact of recycling on energy consumption and
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.056. greenhouse gas emissions from electric vehicle production: The China 2025 case,
[18] W. Shen, W. Han, T.J. Wallington, S.L. Winkler, China electricity generation Resour. CONSERV. Recy., 122 (2017) 114-125. Doi: 10.1016/j.
greenhouse gas emission intensity in 2030: Implications for electric vehicles, resconrec.2017.02.005.

10
X. Xia et al. Separation and Purification Technology 301 (2022) 122063

[45] M. Yu, B. Bai, S. Xiong, X. Liao, Evaluating environmental impacts and economic materials of lithium-ion batteries, Batteries 7 (2021) 29, https://doi.org/
performance of remanufacturing electric vehicle lithium-ion batteries, J. Clean. 10.3390/batteries7020029.
Prod. 321 (2021) 128935, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128935. [71] E. Pipitone, S. Caltabellotta, L. Occhipinti, A life cycle environmental impact
[46] I.Y.L. Hsieh, G.P. Chossière, E. Gençer, H. Chen, S. Barrett, W.H. Green, An comparison between traditional, hybrid, and electric vehicles in the European
integrated assessment of emissions, air quality, and public health impacts of context, Sustainability 13 (2021) 10992, https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910992.
China’s transition to electric vehicles, Environ. Sci. Technol. 56 (2022) [72] C. Bauer, J. Hofer, H.-J. Althaus, A. Del Duce, A. Simons, The environmental
6836–6846, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c06148. performance of current and future passenger vehicles: Life cycle assessment based
[47] Q. Qiao, F. Zhao, Z. Liu, S. Jiang, H. Hao, Comparative study on life cycle CO2 on a novel scenario analysis framework, Appl. Energ. 157 (2015) 871–883,
emissions from the production of electric and conventional vehicles in China, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.019.
Energ. Procedia 105 (2017) 3584–3595, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. [73] Ö. Andersson, P. Börjesson, The greenhouse gas emissions of an electrified vehicle
egypro.2017.03.827. combined with renewable fuels: Life cycle assessment and policy implications,
[48] P. Marques, R. Garcia, L. Kulay, F. Freire, Comparative life cycle assessment of Appl. Energ. 289 (2021) 116621, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
lithium-ion batteries for electric vehicles addressing capacity fade, J. Clean. Prod. apenergy.2021.116621.
229 (2019) 787–794, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.05.026. [74] L. Xu, H.Ü. Yilmaz, Z. Wang, W.-R. Poganietz, P. Jochem, Greenhouse gas
[49] S. Xiong, J. Ji, X. Ma, Comparative life cycle energy and GHG emission analysis emissions of electric vehicles in Europe considering different charging strategies,
for BEVs and PHEVs: A case study in China, Energies 12 (2019) 834, https://doi. Transport. Res. D-TR E. 87 (2020) 102534, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
org/10.3390/en12050834. trd.2020.102534.
[50] Z. Wu, C. Wang, P. Wolfram, Y. Zhang, X. Sun, E. Hertwich, Assessing electric [75] A. Lucas, C. Alexandra Silva, R. Costa Neto, Life cycle analysis of energy supply
vehicle policy with region-specific carbon footprints, Appl. Energ. 256 (2019), infrastructure for conventional and electric vehicles, Energ. Policy 41 (2012)
113923, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113923. 537–547, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.015.
[51] Y. Wu, Z. Yang, B. Lin, H. Liu, R. Wang, B. Zhou, J. Hao, Energy consumption and [76] P.C. Baptista, C.M. Silva, J.A. Peças Lopes, F.J. Soares, P.R. Almeida, Evaluation
CO2 emission impacts of vehicle electrification in three developed regions of of the benefits of the introduction of electricity powered vehicles in an island,
China, Energ, Policy 48 (2012) 537–550, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Energ. Convers. Manage. 76 (2013) 541–553, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2012.05.060. enconman.2013.07.075.
[52] X. Ou, X. Yan, X. Zhang, Using coal for transportation in China: Life cycle GHG of [77] O. Kanz, A. Reinders, J. May, K. Ding, Environmental impacts of integrated
coal-based fuel and electric vehicle, and policy implications, Int. J. Greenh. Gas photovoltaic modules in light utility electric vehicles, Energies 13 (2020) 5120,
Con. 4 (2010) 878–887, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2010.04.018. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13195120.
[53] M. Shafique, A. Azam, M. Rafiq, X. Luo, Life cycle assessment of electric vehicles [78] O. van Vliet, A.S. Brouwer, T. Kuramochi, M. van den Broek, A. Faaij, Energy use,
and internal combustion engine vehicles: A case study of Hong Kong, Res. Transp. cost and CO2 emissions of electric cars, J. Power Sources 196 (2011) 2298–2310,
Econ. 91 (2022) 101112, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2021.101112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2010.09.119.
[54] E. Helmers, M. Weiss, Advances and critical aspects in the life-cycle assessment of [79] D. Burchart-Korol, S. Jursova, P. Folęga, J. Korol, P. Pustejovska, A. Blaut,
battery electric cars, Energy Emiss. Con. Technol. 5 (2017) 1–18, https://doi.org/ Environmental life cycle assessment of electric vehicles in Poland and the Czech
10.2147/EECT.S60408. Republic, J. Clean. Prod. 202 (2018) 476–487, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[55] R. Garcia, F. Freire, R. Clift, Effects on greenhouse gas emissions of introducing jclepro.2018.08.145.
electric vehicles into an electricity system with large storage capacity, J. Ind. [80] Electric vehicle life cycle analysis and raw material availability. https://www.tr
Ecol. 22 (2018) 288–299, https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12593. ansportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/2017_10_LCA_of_climate_impact_EVs.pdf.
[56] L.G.J.B. Dunn, J.C. Kelly, C. James, K.G. Gallagher, The significance of Li-ion [81] A. Moro, L. Lonza, Electricity carbon intensity in European Member States:
batteries in electric vehicle life-cycle energy and emissions and recycling’s role in Impacts on GHG emissions of electric vehicles, Transport. Res. D-TR E. 64 (2018)
its reduction, Energy Environ. Sci. 8 (2015) 11, https://doi.org/10.1039/ 5–14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.07.012.
C4EE03029J. [82] J. Buekers, M. Van Holderbeke, J. Bierkens, L. Int Panis, Health and
[57] Z. Wu, M. Wang, J. Zheng, X. Sun, M. Zhao, X. Wang, Life cycle greenhouse gas environmental benefits related to electric vehicle introduction in EU countries,
emission reduction potential of battery electric vehicle, J J. Clean. Prod. 190 Transport. Res. D-TR E. 33 (2014) 26–38, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
(2018) 462–470, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.04.036. trd.2014.09.002.
[58] F. Liu, F. Zhao, Z. Liu, H. Hao, China’s electric vehicle deployment: Energy and [83] L. Canals Casals, E. Martinez-Laserna, B. Amante García, N. Nieto, Sustainability
greenhouse gas emission impacts, Energies 11 (2018) 3353, https://doi.org/ analysis of the electric vehicle use in Europe for CO2 emissions reduction,
10.3390/en11123353. J. Clean. Prod. 127 (2016) 425–437, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[59] R. Challa, D. Kamath, A. Anctil, Well-to-wheel greenhouse gas emissions of jclepro.2016.03.120.
electric versus combustion vehicles from 2018 to 2030 in the US, J. Environ. [84] F.D. Pero, M. Delogu, M. Pierini, Life cycle assessment in the automotive sector: a
Manage. 308 (2022) 114592, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114592. comparative case study of Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) and electric car,
[60] C. Samaras, K. Meisterling, Life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions Procedia Struct. Integrity 12 (2018) 521–537, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
from plug-in hybrid vehicles: Implications for policy, Environ. Sci. Technol. 42 prostr.2018.11.066.
(2008) 3170–3176, https://doi.org/10.1021/es702178s. [85] L.A.W. Ellingsen, B. Singh, A.H. Strømman, The size and range effect: lifecycle
[61] X. Xia, P. Li, A review of the life cycle assessment of electric vehicles: Considering greenhouse gas emissions of electric vehicles, Environ. Res. Lett. 11 (2016),
the influence of batteries, Sci. Total Environ. 814 (2022), 152870, https://doi. 054010, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/054010.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152870. [86] D.C. Rosenfeld, J. Lindorfer, K. Fazeni-Fraisl, Comparison of advanced
[62] T.P. Hendrickson, O. Kavvada, N. Shah, R. Sathre, C.D. Scown, Life-cycle fuels—Which technology can win from the life cycle perspective? J. Clean. Prod.
implications and supply chain logistics of electric vehicle battery recycling in 238 (2019) 117879, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.117879.
California, Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (2015), 014011, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748- [87] I. Bartolozzi, F. Rizzi, M. Frey, Comparison between hydrogen and electric
9326/10/1014011. vehicles by life cycle assessment: A case study in Tuscany, Italy, Appl. Energ. 101
[63] M.A.M. Tamayao, J.J. Michalek, C. Hendrickson, I.M.L. Azevedo, Regional (2013) 103–111, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2012.03.021.
variability and uncertainty of electric vehicle life cycle CO2 emissions across the [88] J. Van Mierlo, M. Messagie, S. Rangaraju, Comparative environmental assessment
United States, Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (2015) 8844–8855, https://doi.org/ of alternative fueled vehicles using a life cycle assessment, Transp. Res. Pro. 25
10.1021/acs.est.5b00815. (2017) 3435–3445, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.244.
[64] N.C. Onat, M. Kucukvar, O. Tatari, Conventional, hybrid, plug-in hybrid or [89] M. Messagie, F. Boureima, J. Matheys, N. Sergeant, L. Turcksin, C. Macharis, J.
electric vehicles? State-based comparative carbon and energy footprint analysis Van Mierlo, Life cycle assessment of conventional and alternative small passenger
in the United States, Appl. Energ. 150 (2015) 36–49, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. vehicles in Belgium, 2010. Doi: 10.1109/VPPC.2010.5729233.
apenergy.2015.04.001. [90] K. Bekel, S. Pauliuk, Prospective cost and environmental impact assessment of
[65] J. Archsmith, A. Kendall, D. Rapson, From cradle to junkyard: Assessing the life battery and fuel cell electric vehicles in Germany, Int. J. Life Cycle Ass. 24 (2019)
cycle greenhouse gas benefits of electric vehicles, Res. Transp. Econ. 52 (2015) 2220–2237, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-019-01640-8.
72–90, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2015.10.007. [91] E. Yoo, M. Kim, H.H. Song, Well-to-wheel analysis of hydrogen fuel-cell electric
[66] H. Ambrose, A. Kendall, Effects of battery chemistry and performance on the life vehicle in Korea, Int. J. Hydrogen Energ. 43 (2018) 19267–19278, https://doi.
cycle greenhouse gas intensity of electric mobility, Transport. Res. D-TR E. 47 org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2018.08.088.
(2016) 182–194, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2016.05.009. [92] K. Nansai, S. Tohno, M. Kono, M. Kasahara, Effects of electric vehicles (EV) on
[67] F. Yang, Y. Xie, Y. Deng, C. Yuan, Predictive modeling of battery degradation and environmental loads with consideration of regional differences of electric power
greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. state-level electric vehicle operation, Nat. generation and charging characteristic of EV users in Japan, Appl. Energ. 71
Commun. 9 (2018) 2429, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04826-0. (2002) 111–125, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-2619(01)00046-0.
[68] T.R. Hawkins, B. Singh, G. Majeau-Bettez, A.H. Strømman, Comparative [93] M.S. Sheng, A.V. Sreenivasan, B. Sharp, B. Du, Well-to-wheel analysis of
environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles, J. Ind. greenhouse gas emissions and energy consumption for electric vehicles: A
Ecol. 17 (2013) 53–64, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x. comparative study in Oceania, Energ. Policy 158 (2021) 112552, https://doi.org/
[69] C. Tagliaferri, S. Evangelisti, F. Acconcia, T. Domenech, P. Ekins, D. Barletta, 10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112552.
P. Lettieri, Life cycle assessment of future electric and hybrid vehicles: A cradle- [94] N. Hoque, W. Biswas, I. Mazhar, I. Howard, Environmental life cycle assessment
to-grave systems engineering approach, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 112 (2016) of alternative fuels for western Australia’s transport sector, Atmosphere 10
298–309, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2016.07.003. (2019) 398, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10070398.
[70] L. Kurz, M. Faryadras, I. Klugius, F. Reichert, A. Scheibe, M. Schmidt, R. Wörner, [95] L.L.P. de Souza, E.E.S. Lora, J.C.E. Palacio, M.H. Rocha, M.L.G. Renó, O.
Global warming potential of a new waterjet-Based recycling process for cathode J. Venturini, Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional
vehicles with different fuel options, plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles for a

11
X. Xia et al. Separation and Purification Technology 301 (2022) 122063

sustainable transportation system in Brazil, J. Clean. Prod. 203 (2018) 444–468, [99] R. Kawamoto, H. Mochizuki, Y. Moriguchi, T. Nakano, M. Motohashi, Y. Sakai,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.08.236. A. Inaba, Estimation of CO2 emissions of internal combustion engine vehicle and
[96] A.C.R. Teixeira, J.R. Sodré, Impacts of replacement of engine powered vehicles by battery electric vehicle using LCA, Sustainability 11 (2019) 2690, https://doi.
electric vehicles on energy consumption and CO2 emissions, Transport. Res. D-TR. org/10.3390/su11092690.
E. 59 (2018) 375–384, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.01.004. [100] F. Orsi, M. Muratori, M. Rocco, E. Colombo, G. Rizzoni, A multi-dimensional well-
[97] T. Peng, X. Ou, X. Yan, Development and application of an electric vehicles life- to-wheels analysis of passenger vehicles in different regions: Primary energy
cycle energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions analysis model, Chem. consumption, CO2 emissions, and economic cost, Appl. Energ. 169 (2016)
Eng. Res. Des. 131 (2018) 699–708, https://doi.org/10.1016/j. 197–209, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.039.
cherd.2017.12.018. [101] H. Huo, H. Cai, Q. Zhang, F. Liu, K. He, Life-cycle assessment of greenhouse gas
[98] A. Helland, Well-to-wheel CO2 analysis of electric and ICE vehicles: are global and air emissions of electric vehicles: A comparison between China and the U.S,
CO2 emission reductions possible? Int. J. Global Warm. 1 (2009) 432–442, Atmos. Environ. 108 (2015) 107–116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGW.2009.029214. atmosenv.2015.02.073.

12