Life Cycle Assessment of conventional and alternative small passenger vehicles in Belgium

Messagie, Maarten; Boureima, Fayçal-Siddikou; Matheys, Julien; Sergeant, Nele; Turcksin, Laurence; Macharis, Cathy; Mierlo, Joeri Van

doi:10.1109/vppc.2010.5729233

Cited by 25 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1 represents the life cycle of the vehicle itself, which is sometimes referred to as "cradle-tograve" (Baptista et al 2011;Messagie et al 2010;Van Mierlo et al 2003a) or as "vehicle cycle" (Gao and Winfield 2012;Jaramillo et al 2009;Lane 2006). In this text, we introduce the term "equipment life cycle"-in line with terminology used in the ISO standard (ISO 2006a).…”

Section: Life Cycle Scopementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, this term is more generic, since it is applicable also to studies of powertrain or component levels. This way of dividing the complete life cycle into two main flows is common in vehicle LCA (Baptista et al 2011;Gao and Winfield 2012;Jaramillo et al 2009;Lane 2006;Messagie et al 2010;Van Mierlo et al 2003a). For studies where all processes are included, i.e., both the WTW and equipment life cycles, the term "complete LCA" is used hereinafter.…”

Section: Life Cycle Scopementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Lundmark

Messagie

Tillman

et al. 2014

Int J Life Cycle Assess

414

236

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose 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. Methods 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.Results and discussion 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. Conclusions 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). Responsible editor: Hans-Joerg AlthausElectronic supplementary material The online version of this article

show abstract

Section: Life Cycle Scopementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Life Cycle Scopementioning

confidence: 99%

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

Lundmark

Messagie

Tillman

et al. 2014

Int J Life Cycle Assess

414

236

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many LCA studies dealing with vehicles or components exist [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. Often, vehicle-LCA studies provide contradictory results, depending on the data and modeling assumptions used, making it difficult for policy makers to formulate solid decisions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Range-Based Vehicle Life Cycle Assessment Incorporating Variability in the Environmental Assessment of Different Vehicle Technologies and Fuels

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How to compare the environmental performance of different vehicle technologies? Vehicles with lower tailpipe emissions are perceived as cleaner. However, does it make sense to look only to tailpipe emissions? Limiting the comparison only to these emissions denies the fact that there are emissions involved during the production of a fuel and this approach gives too much advantage to zero-tailpipe vehicles like battery electric vehicles (BEV) and fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV). Would it be enough to combine fuel production and tailpipe emissions? Especially when comparing the environmental performance of alternative vehicle technologies, the emissions during production of the specific components and their appropriate end-of-life treatment processes should also be taken into account. Therefore, the complete life cycle of the vehicle should be included in order to avoid problem shifting from one life stage to another. In this article, a full life cycle assessment (LCA) of petrol, diesel, fuel cell electric (FCEV), compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), hybrid electric, battery electric (BEV), bio-diesel and bio-ethanol vehicles has been performed. The aim of the manuscript is to investigate the impact of the different vehicle technologies on the environment and to OPEN ACCESSEnergies 2014, 7 1468 develop a range-based modeling system that enables a more robust interpretation of the LCA results for a group of vehicles. Results are shown for climate change, respiratory effects, acidification and mineral extraction damage of the different vehicle technologies. A broad range of results is obtained due to the variability within the car market. It is concluded that it is essential to take into account the influence of all the vehicle parameters on the LCA results.

show abstract

“…An extensive life cycle inventory (LCI) step has been elaborated covering all the inputs and outputs (materials, chemicals, energy, emissions) from and to the environment from all the unit processes involved in the product system [10]. The vehicle specific data such as the segment, technology, fuel type, fuel consumption, Euro standard, weight and direct emissions are obtained from the Ecoscore database (www.ecoscore.be).…”

Section: Life Cycle Assessment Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of the well-to-wheel approach in the Ecoscore methodology with life cycle assessment for passenger cars

Sergeant¹,

Messagie²,

Boureima³

et al. 2012

WIT Transactions on the Built Environment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two methodologies are often used for assessing the environmental impact of a specific car, namely the Ecoscore methodology, a well-to-wheel environmental rating tool for vehicles, and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). The environmental impact of a selection of petrol and diesel cars of different ages, as well as alternatively fuelled vehicles (LPG, CNG, HEV, BEV), has been assessed using both methodologies. The influence of neglecting the impact of the vehicle production, maintenance and end-of-life (EoL) phases has shown to be very small, especially for conventional vehicle technologies (petrol, diesel, LPG). For hybrid (HEV) and battery electric vehicles (BEV), the manufacturing and EoL of the battery also play an important role, which is mainly displayed in the impact on human health and ecosystems. However, since the impact on global warming counts for 50% in the final Ecoscore, these differences will play a smaller role and -more importantly -still lead to the same ranking of the vehicle technologies as in the LCA results for greenhouse effect. These results have shown that the Ecoscore methodology is an efficient environmental rating tool and hence that a well-to-wheel approach can be considered as a good approximation of a full LCA, in these cases where only the homologated emission and fuel consumption data are available. LCA can however provide a more profound assessment, in case sufficient data are available, since more impact categories and pollutants can be taken into account.

show abstract

Life Cycle Assessment of conventional and alternative small passenger vehicles in Belgium

Cited by 25 publications

References 4 publications

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

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

A Range-Based Vehicle Life Cycle Assessment Incorporating Variability in the Environmental Assessment of Different Vehicle Technologies and Fuels

Validation of the well-to-wheel approach in the Ecoscore methodology with life cycle assessment for passenger cars

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About