13th International Colloquium Fuels - September 2021 23 GHG Emissions and Primary Energy Demand of Vehicle Fleets Based on Dynamic LCA Methodology - Introduction of Electric Vehicles in Austria 2010 - 2050 Gerfried Jungmeier JOANNEUM RESEARCH - Institute for Climate, Energy and Society (LIFE), Graz, Austria Summary The environmental effect of electric vehicles can only be assessed based on life cycle assessment (LCA) covering production, operation and end of life treatment. Since 2011 in the Technical Collaboration Program (TCP) on “Hybrid & Electric Vehicles” (HEV) of the International Energy Agency (IEA) with 20 participating countries an expert group develops and applies LCA methodology to estimate the environmental effects of the increasing electric vehicle (EV) fleet globally. Since 2014, IEA HEV Task 30 estimates the LCA based environmental effects of the worldwide EV fleet in 40 countries. In the LCA of these vehicles using the different national framework conditions, the environmental effects are estimated by assessing the possible ranges of GHG emissions, acidification, ozone formation, PM emissions and primary energy consumption in comparison to conventional ICE vehicles. Now this approach was further developed to a dynamic LCA by taking the time depending effects of the BEV fleet introduction and the parallel increasing supply of renewable electricity into consideration. To illustrate the timing of the environmental effects in a dynamic LCA perspective the case of Austria shows that the additional renewable electricity generation increased between 0.2 up to 2.2 TWh per year up to 2020. The annual GHG emissions due to the installation of new renewable electricity generation plants in Austria were between 100,000 up to 800,000 t CO 2 -eq per from 2005 to 2020. Due to the dynamic LCA approach, the GHG emissions of the construction of renewable electricity generation plants before 2005 are not considered in the years from 2005 onwards, only the GHG emissions of operating the plants for maintenance and the fuel supply for bioenergy are included. The GHG emissions of renewable electricity generation in Austria in existing and newly installed power plants are in the range between 8 to 33 g CO 2 -eq/ kWh, whereas the GHG emissions of the additionally installed renewable electricity generation is between 31 and 250 CO 2 -eq/ kWh. The BEV introduction in Austria started in 2010 and the annually registered BEV increased significantly to 16,000 new BEVs in 2020. The BEV fleet increased up to 46,000 BEVs in 2020, and consumes 142 GWh electricity, which is 1.1% of the additional renewable electricity generated since 2010. The GHG emissions of the BEV introduction since 2010 in Austria are calculated by considering the GHG emissions of the production from the annually new registered BEV and the operation of the BEV fleet by taking the substituted conventional ICE vehicles into account. In 2020, the GHG emissions of producing the newly registered 16,000 BEV are 167,000 t CO 2 -eq and the GHG emissions of the BEV fleet operation of 45,000 vehicles with renewable electricity are 3,000 t CO 2 -eq. Assuming each BEV substitutes for an ICE, 16,000 newly registered conventional ICE vehicle were substituted in 2020 avoiding GHG emissions from their production of 96,000 t CO 2 -eq and avoiding GHG emissions of 94,000 t CO 2 -eq in the ICE fleet operation of 45,000 conventional ICE vehicles. Therefore, in 2020 the BEV fleet in Austria emitted 170,000 t CO 2 -eq and avoided 190,000 t CO 2 -eq from substituting conventional ICE vehicles, which results in an overall GHG reduction of 20,000 t CO 2 -eq in 2020. In a next step this methodology is applied in scenarios up to 2050 to reach a climate neutral Austrian transport sector and to identify its necessary framework conditions. 1. Introduction The environmental effect of electric vehicles can only be assessed based on life cycle assessment (LCA) covering production, operation and end of life treatment. Since 2011 in the Technical Collaboration Program (TCP) on “Hybrid & Electric Vehicles” (HEV) of the International Energy Agency (IEA) with 20 participating countries an expert group develops and applies LCA methodology to estimate the environmental effects of the increasing electric vehicle (EV) fleet globally [1, 2, 5]. 24 13th International Colloquium Fuels - September 2021 GHG Emissions and Primary Energy Demand of Vehicle Fleets Based on Dynamic LCA Methodology Since 2014, IEA HEV Task 30 estimates the LCA based environmental effects of the worldwide EV fleet in 40 countries. In the LCA of these vehicles using the different national framework conditions, the environmental effects are estimated by assessing the possible ranges of GHG emissions, acidification, ozone formation, PM emissions and primary energy consumption in comparison to conventional ICE vehicles [3, 4, 6, 7]. The environmental assessment of the global EV fleet based on LCA compared to the substituted conventional ICE vehicles leads to the following key issues: • The environmental effects depend on the national framework condition, e.g., national grid electricity generation mix. • The broad range of possible environ]mental effects is caused by the: - emissions of the national electricity production and distribution, - electricity consumption of EVs at charging point, and - fuel consumption of substituted conventional ICE vehicles. • The highest environmental benefits can be reached by using additional installed renewable electricity, which is synchronized with the charging of the EVs. • The adequate loading strategies for EVs to integrate additional renewable electricity effectively will create further significant environmental benefits. Now this approach was further developed to a dynamic LCA by taking the time depending effects of the BEV fleet introduction and the parallel increasing supply of renewable electricity into consideration. 2. Issues on dynamic LCA of vehicle fleet Issues on dynamic LCA, e.g. annual environmental effects, become relevant for the rapidly increasing of EVfleets combined with an additional generation of renewable electricity. For this, the Task identified the following relevant methodological aspects: 1. timing of environmental effects in the three lifecycle phases, 2. timing of environmental effects of increasing supply of renewable electricity, 3. timing of environmental effects of EVs using increasing supply of renewable electricity, and 4. substitution effects and timing of environmental effects of EVs substituting for ICE vehicles. The possible environmental effects of a system occur at different times during their lifetime. In LCA, the environmental effects are analysed for the three phases separately - production (for vehicles) or construction (for power plants), operation and end of life - over the whole lifetime of a system. Then the cumulated environmental effects over the lifetime are allocated to the service provided by the system during the operation phase, which is the functional unit in LCA, e.g. per kilometre driven for vehicles and kWh generated for power plants. Therefore, the functional unit gives the average environmental effects over lifetime by allocating the environmental effects for production and end of life over the lifetime to the service provided independent of the time when they occur. Another approach considered in the Task is to reflect and keep the time depending course of the environmental effects in the life cycle and compare the absolute cumulated environmental effects in a dynamic LCA. In Figure 1, the possible courses of the cumulated environmental effects of three systems in their lifetime are shown for the three phases - production, operation and end of life. All the three systems - A, B and C have the same lifetime and provide the same service but the courses of the environmental effects are quite different. The system A has low environmental effects in the production/ construction phase but high effects during the operation/ use phase and again low effects in the end of life phase. While system B has very high effects in the production phase, very low further effects in the operation phase and declining environmental effects in the end of life phase due to the recycling of materials and a credit given for the supply of secondary materials for substituting primary material. The system C has lower effects in production/ construction phase than system B and no further effects during the operation phase, but significantly declining environmental effects in the end of life phase, which is due to the reuse of certain parts, facilities or materials for other further purposes. Considering the total cumulated environmental effects system C has the lowest and system A the highest effects in their lifetime. However, additionally it can be analysed at which time in the lifecycle the system C has lower cumulated environmental effects compared to the other systems. At t 1 system C has lower cumulated environmental effects than system A; at the time t 2 system B has lower cumulated effects than system A. This timing of the environmental effects becomes more relevant in future, when new innovative systems substitute for conventional systems to reduce the overall environmental effects. However, it might take some time until the real reduction of environmental effects takes place by the new innovative system. This aspect becomes more and more relevant in the context e.g. of the global necessary reduction of GHG emissions with increasing energy efficiency and renewable energy. Therefore, in dynamic LCA the course of the cumulated environmental effects have to be considered and addressed more adequately. 13th International Colloquium Fuels - September 2021 25 GHG Emissions and Primary Energy Demand of Vehicle Fleets Based on Dynamic LCA Methodology Figure 1: Timing of cumulated environmental effects of three systems with the same lifetime In Figure 2, the timing of environmental effects of a BEV using renewable electricity substituting an ICE vehicle is shown. In total over the lifetime the BEV has lower environmental effects e.g. GHG emissions than the ICE. Due to the higher environmental effects from production of the BEV the environmental effects are higher in the beginning, but after about 3 years the environmental benefits of substituting ICE vehicles starts. An additional effect is that due to the rebound effect not each electric driven kilometre might substitute a fossil fuel driven kilometre. Therefore, the substitution rate might be lower than 100%. In the example below, the timing of environmental effects is shown for a substitution rate of 80% and 100%. Additionally, if the timing effects are analysed for a rapid annual increase of BEV the annual environmental effect might still be higher than the substituted ICE vehicles. So depending on the annual growing size of the BEV fleet it might take some time until the overall annual environmental effects decline by substitution of ICE vehicles. Figure 2: Timing of environmental effects of a BEV using renewable electricity substituting an ICE vehicle 3. LCA of supplying additional renewable electricity - Example Austria It is relevant to analyse and assess the environmental effect of the increasing production of renewable electricity generation and its use, e.g. in BEV. The environmental effects, e.g., GHG emissions, of electricity from hydro, wind and solar power plants mainly occur in the construction and the end of life phases. In most countries, there are huge investments in new facilities to generate additional renewable electricity. Related to these investments significant environmental effects are taking place with these investments, but the substitution of conventional electricity generation will lead to a reduction of environmental effects in the coming years. To illustrate the timing of the environmental effects in a dynamic LCA perspective the following example of Austria of increasing the renewable electricity generation is described. The additional renewable electricity generation in Austria increased between 0.2 up to 2.2 TWh per year from 2005 up to 2020. In Figure 3, the total renewable electricity generation in Austria is shown from 2005 to 2020. Already in 2004 about 40 TWh renewable electricity was generated mainly in hydro power plants. Over the years, the generation from renewable electricity increased from 41 TWh in 2005 up to 57 TWh in 2020 significantly. The share of renewable electricity in the Austrian grid mix (incl. imports) increased from about 60% in 2005 up to 75% in 2020. Figure 3: Renewable electricity generation in Austria (references are given in working document) The annual GHG emissions due to the installation of new renewable electricity generation plants in Austria were between 100,000 up to 800,000 t CO 2 -eq per from 2005 to 2020, depending on the annual installed generation capacity and the type of renewable energy. E.g. the installation of a power plant to generate 1 GWh annually of PV with about 1,400 to 1,600 t CO 2 -eq has significantly higher GHG emissions than hydro and wind with about 250 - 600 t CO 2 -eq. The combination of the annual GHG emissions and the additional electricity generation gives the specific GHG emissions of renewable electricity generation in Austria (Figure 4), on one hand the GHG emissions of the additional installed renewable electricity generation and on the other hand of the total renewable electricity mix in Austria. Due to the chosen dynamic LCA approach here, the GHG emissions of the construction of renewable electricity generation plants before 2005 are not considered in the years from 2005 onwards, only the relatively low GHG emissions of operating the plants for maintenance and the fuel 26 13th International Colloquium Fuels - September 2021 GHG Emissions and Primary Energy Demand of Vehicle Fleets Based on Dynamic LCA Methodology supply for bioenergy are included. So the GHG emissions of renewable electricity generation in Austria in existing (before 2005) and newly installed power plants (since 2005) are in the range between 8 to 33 g CO 2 -eq/ kWh, whereas the GHG emissions of the additionally installed renewable electricity generation is between 31 and 250 CO 2 -eq/ kWh between 2005 and 2020. Figure 4: GHG emissions of renewable electricity generation in Austria 4. GHG emissions of BEV introduction in Austria The introduction of BEV in Austria started in 2010. Additionally, also PHEV were introduced, which are not considered here. The annually registered BEV increased significantly and reached nearly 16,000 new BEVs in 2020. The BEV fleet increased up to about 46,000 BEVs in 2020. The rapid increase of the BEV fleet in Austria was stimulated by public funding of up to € 6,000 for the investment and the charging stations. If the supply of renewable electricity for the operation of the BEV is guaranteed by a corresponding electricity purchase contract. Assuming an electricity demand of about 0.22 kWh/ km (incl. heating, cooling and auxiliaries) and 10% grid and charging losses the additional renewable electricity demand for the operation of the BEV fleet increased from 0.3 GWh in 2010 up to 142 GWh in 2020. Considering the increased renewable electricity generation since 2010 in Austria the demand to operate the BEV fleet is in a range of 0.1 to 1.1% of the additional renewable electricity generated since 2010. Concluding, also in this system perspective it is evident that the Austrian BEV fleet is operated on renewable electricity, while the increasing demand for electricity is met with increasing supply of renewable electricity. Considering the course of the annual GHG emissions of the renewable electricity generation in Austria the GHG emissions of the operations of the BEV fleet in Austria are calculated using the GHG emission (2010 - 2020) between 10 to 18 g CO 2 -eq/ kWh. The GHG emissions of BEV fleet operation using the renewable electricity mix in Austria are in average between 2.5 to 4.5 g CO 2 -eq/ km without considering maintenance and spare parts. Therefore, in average between 2010 and 2020 the GHG emissions of a BEV operating in Austria are about 3.6 g CO 2 -eq/ km. In addition, the GHG emissions from the production of the new registered BEV are calculated in an LCA perspective. The average GHG emissions of the global battery production has decreased from about 100 kg CO 2 -eq per kWh battery capacity in 2010 to about 70 kg CO 2 -eq/ kWh. At the same time the battery capacity of a new BEV in Austria increase from about 30 kWh in 2010 to about 65 kWh in 2020 in average, due to the lower battery costs and the demand for higher driving ranges. Therefore, the production of a new BEV between 2010 and 2020 causes GHG emissions between 8.5 up to 10.5 t CO 2 -eq. In comparison, the production of a conventional new ICE vehicle causes about 6 t CO 2 -eq. However, the operation of a conventional substituted ICE vehicle has GHG emissions of about 145 g CO 2 -eq/ km with an average fuel consumption of about 0.52 kWh/ km. The GHG emissions of the BEV introduction since 2010 in Austria are calculated by considering the GHG emissions of the production from the annually new registered BEV and the operation of the BEV fleet by taking the substituted conventional ICE vehicles into account. In Figure 5, the change of GHG emissions of the BEV fleet substituting an ICE fleet in Austria are shown. In 2020, the GHG emissions of the production of the newly registered 16,000 BEV are about 167,000 t CO 2 -eq and the GHG emissions of the BEV fleet operation of about 45,000 vehicles with renewable electricity are about 3,000 t CO 2 -eq. Assuming each BEV substitutes for an ICE, about 16,000 newly registered conventional ICE vehicle were substituted in 2020 avoiding GHG emissions from their production of about 96,000 t CO 2 -eq and avoiding GHG emissions of about 94,000 t CO 2 -eq in the ICE fleet operation of about 45,000 conventional ICE vehicles. Therefore, in 2020 the BEV fleet in Austria emitted about 170,000 t CO 2 -eq and avoided about 190,000 t CO 2 -eq from substituting conventional ICE vehicles, which results in an overall GHG saving in 2020 of about 20,000 t CO 2 -eq. Figure 5: Change of GHG emissions of BEV fleet substituting ICE fleets in Austria 13th International Colloquium Fuels - September 2021 27 GHG Emissions and Primary Energy Demand of Vehicle Fleets Based on Dynamic LCA Methodology 5. Conclusions and outlook Timing of environmental effects in LCA of EVs production-operation-end-of-life phases becomes relevant in the transition time of • strong BEV introduction in combination with a • strong increase of additional renewable electricity generation and • improvement of battery production technologies. Within the framework of LCA a methodology is developed and applied to the annual environmental effects of an increasing BEV fleet and substitution of ICE vehicles by considering the annual environmental effects of • New vehicle production • Supply of renewable electricity from existing and new power plant • Substituted operation of ICE vehicles and • End of life of old vehicles. In a next step this methodology is applied in scenarios up to 2050 to reach a climate neutral Austrian transport sector and to identify its necessary framework conditions. References [1] Jungmeier Gerfried, Dunn Jennifer B, Elgowainy Amgad, Gaines Linda, Ehrenberger Simone, Doruk Enver Özdemir, Widmer Rolf: Key Issues in Life Cycle Assessment of Electric Vehicles - Findings in the International Energy Agency (IEA) on Hybrid and Electric Vehicles (HEV) (EVS27, 2013) [2] Jungmeier Gerfried, Dunn Jennifer B, Elgowainy Amgad, Gaines Linda, Ehrenberger Simone, Doruk Enver Özdemir, Widmer Rolf: Life cycle assessment of electric vehicles - Key issues of Task 19 of the International Energy Agency (IEA) on Hybrid and Electric Vehicles (HEV), TRA 2014 [3] Gerfried Jungmeier, Jenifer Dunn, Amgad Elgowainy, Simone Ehrenberger, Rolf Widmer: Estimated Environmental Effects of the Worldwide Electric Vehicle Fleet - A Life Cycle Assessment in Task 19 of the International Energy Agency (IEA) on Hybrid and Electric Vehicles (HEV), , Conference Proceedings, EEVC 2015 - European Battery, Hybrid and Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Congress, Brussels, Belgium, 2 - 4. December 2015 [4] Gerfried Jungmeier, Jennifer B. Dunn, Amgad Elgowainy, Linda Gaines, Martin Beermann, Simone Ehrenberger, Rolf Widmer: Life-cycle Based Environmental Effects of 1.5 Mio. Electric Vehicles on the Road in 35 Countries - Facts & Figures from the IEA Technical Cooperation Program on Hybrid & Electric Vehicles (EVS 30, 2017) [5] Gerfried Jungmeier, Amgad A. Elgowainy, Simone Ehrenberger, Gabriela Benveniste Pérez, Pierre- Olivier Roye, Lim Ocktaeck: Water Issues and Electric Vehicles - Key Aspects and Examples in Life Cycle Assessment (EVS 31, 2018) [6] Gerfried Jungmeier, Amgad A. Elgowainy, Simone Ehrenberger, Gabriela Benveniste Pérez, Pierre- Olivier Roye, Lim Ocktaeck: LCA Based Estimation of Environmental Effects of the Global Electric Vehicles Fleet - Facts & Figures from the IEA Technology Collaboration Program on Hybrid & Electric Vehicles, Transport Research Arena TRA 2018 in Wien, 16-19 April 2018 [7] Gerfried Jungmeier, Lorenza Canella, Jarod C. Kelly, Amgad A. Elgowainy, Simone Ehrenberger, Deidre Wolff: Evaluation of the Environmental Benefits of the Global EV-Fleet in 38 Countries - A LCA Based Estimation in IEA HEV (EVS 32, 2019) Acknowledgement The work of the Austrian participation in IEA HEV Task 30 (2018 - 2022) is financed by the Austrian Climate and Energy Fund and the FFG