It is widely acknowledged that unharmonized methodological and data choices in life cycle assessments (LCAs) can limit comparability and complicate decision-making, ultimately hindering their effectiveness in guiding the rapid transition to electric mobility in Europe. The electric mobility sector aims to harmonize these assumptions and choices to improve comparability and better support decision-making. To support these efforts, this article aims to review the LCA practices across various sources in order to identify where key differences in assumptions, methodological approaches, and data selection occur in relevant LCA topics. In addition to this primary objective, we highlight certain practices that could serve as starting points for ongoing harmonization attempts, pointing out topics where it is challenging to do so. Our results showed that cradle-to-grave system boundary is the most commonly adopted in vehicle and traction battery LCAs, with maintenance and capital goods often excluded. The distance-based functional unit is dominant. Choices in Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) showed the greatest diversity and need for harmonization. Data quality and availability vary significantly by life cycle stage, with no standardized data collection approach in place. A lack of primary data is most prominent in the raw material acquisition and end of life (EoL) life cycle stages. Electricity consumption is a key topic in the EV sector, with major debates surrounding location-based versus market-based and static versus dynamic modeling. Multifunctionality problems are vaguely defined and resolved in the literature. For EoL multifunctionality, cut-off and avoided burden are prevalent, while allocation is common upstream. Impact assessments primarily follow the ReCiPe and CML-IA methods, with climate change, acidification, photochemical ozone formation, and eutrophication being the most reported impact categories. Systematic uncertainty propagation is rare in interpretations, with sensitivity analyses typically focusing on energy consumption, total mileage, and battery recycling rates. Overall, the review showed a big variation in assumptions and choices in EV LCA studies, particularly in the LCI stage. Among the discussed topics, we identified multifunctionality and electricity modeling as particularly contentious.
Eltohamy, Hazemvan Oers, LauranLindholm, JuliaRaugei, Marco Lokesh, KadambariBaars, JorisHusmann, JanaHill, NikolasIstrate, RobertJose, DavisTegstedt, FredrikBeylot, AntoineMenegazzi, PascalGuinée, JeroenSteubing, Bernhard
School of Engineering, Computing and Mathematics
Year of publication: 2024Date of RADAR deposit: 2024-11-14