The electro-mobility of vehicles could solve the negative effects of road transport, by decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. However, some electric vehicles also have a negative impact on the environment related to the nature of electricity used. This paper aims to evaluate the electricity sources for electric vehicles using a Life Cycle Thinking approach. Life cycle assessment, using several midpoints and endpoint methods, highlighted that the most damaging sources were lignite and diesel, while hydropower, wind, and biomass were the most sustainable ones. Cumulative energy demand showed that biomass used the least energy (0.034 MJ eq.), but originates from 100% non-renewable sources. Lignite, which also comes from 100% non-renewable sources, used the most energy (17.791 MJ eq.). The lowest carbon footprints were for wind, biomass, and photovoltaic (<0.1 kg CO2 eq). Municipal waste incineration and natural gas had a medium impact, while lignite, coal, peat, and diesel had a high impact (>1.0 kg CO2 eq.). Considering life cycle costing, photovoltaic electricity generation was the most expensive (0.2107 USD/kWh) while natural gas the cheapest (0.0661 USD/kWh). Therefore, this study presents an integrated approach that may offer a valid tool for decision-makers, giving them the possibility to choose the electricity sources for electric vehicles.

Environmental and Economic Sustainability of Electric Vehicles: Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing Evaluation of Electricity Sources / Rapa, Mattia; Gobbi, Laura; Ruggieri, Roberto. - In: ENERGIES. - ISSN 1996-1073. - 13:23(2020), p. 6292. [10.3390/en13236292]

Environmental and Economic Sustainability of Electric Vehicles: Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing Evaluation of Electricity Sources

Rapa, Mattia
;
Gobbi, Laura;Ruggieri, Roberto
2020

Abstract

The electro-mobility of vehicles could solve the negative effects of road transport, by decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. However, some electric vehicles also have a negative impact on the environment related to the nature of electricity used. This paper aims to evaluate the electricity sources for electric vehicles using a Life Cycle Thinking approach. Life cycle assessment, using several midpoints and endpoint methods, highlighted that the most damaging sources were lignite and diesel, while hydropower, wind, and biomass were the most sustainable ones. Cumulative energy demand showed that biomass used the least energy (0.034 MJ eq.), but originates from 100% non-renewable sources. Lignite, which also comes from 100% non-renewable sources, used the most energy (17.791 MJ eq.). The lowest carbon footprints were for wind, biomass, and photovoltaic (<0.1 kg CO2 eq). Municipal waste incineration and natural gas had a medium impact, while lignite, coal, peat, and diesel had a high impact (>1.0 kg CO2 eq.). Considering life cycle costing, photovoltaic electricity generation was the most expensive (0.2107 USD/kWh) while natural gas the cheapest (0.0661 USD/kWh). Therefore, this study presents an integrated approach that may offer a valid tool for decision-makers, giving them the possibility to choose the electricity sources for electric vehicles.
2020
electric vehicles; sustainability; life cycle assessment; life cycle costing; electric mobility; cumulative energy demand; carbon footprint
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
Environmental and Economic Sustainability of Electric Vehicles: Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing Evaluation of Electricity Sources / Rapa, Mattia; Gobbi, Laura; Ruggieri, Roberto. - In: ENERGIES. - ISSN 1996-1073. - 13:23(2020), p. 6292. [10.3390/en13236292]
File allegati a questo prodotto
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/1464836
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 19
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 20
social impact