Materials Today: Proceedings 49 (2022) 217–222

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Materials Today: Proceedings

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

Life cycle assessment of electric vehicles in comparison to combustion

engine vehicles: A review
Shrey Verma a, Gaurav Dwivedi a,⇑, Puneet Verma b,⇑
a
Energy Centre, Maulana Azad National Institute of Technology, Bhopal, 462003, India
b
Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Electric vehicle (EV) are the future of the automobile industry in terms of reducing the greenhouse gas
Received 6 January 2021 emissions, air pollution and the better life comfort level all over the world. This paper compares the
Accepted 21 January 2021 results obtained by various authors in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA) of EV and conventional vehi-
Available online 28 February 2021
cles powered by fossil fuels, and the life cycle cost (LCC) analysis of the both types of vehicles, as every
new technology comes with an additional cost which need to be feasible with respect to the present
Keywords: trends. And also discuss some of the software used for both type of LCA and LCC analysis. The finding
Climate change
of review concludes that with the adoption of EV there is a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions
Electric vehicle
Human toxicity
(GHG) but there is an increase in the human toxicity level due to the larger use of metals, chemicals
Life cycle assessment and energy for the production of powertrain, and high voltage batteries. And in terms of cost it has flex-
Life cycle cost analysis ible pricing as there is uncertainty in pricing of future gasoline and electricity mix, higher initial cost at
the time of purchasing due to higher pricing of battery.
Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Confer-
ence on Advancement in Materials, Manufacturing and Energy Engineering (ICAMME-2021).

1. Introduction Among all best alternative for vehicles, electric vehicles (EVs)
has emerged as appropriate option with the combination of vari-
Finding the best alternative for vehicle systems, energy sources, ous technologies such as hybrid electric vehicle (HEV), fuel-cell
transportation fuel, and utilizing the resources in a better way have electric vehicle (FCEV) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV)
made the researchers and industrialists to make it more efficient. [4]. EVs offers advantageous features from internal combustion
The need for sustainable resources and vehicular systems is engine (ICEV) in terms of zero tail pipe emissions, low maintenance
increasing the world, due to an increase in oil prices, energy secu- required, higher powertrain efficiency and at last less urban air
rity, and global climate change [1]. As per the EPA report, CO2 is the pollution [5]. With the use of electricity as fuel for transportation
major gas content in global GHG emissions and is produced by fos- sector in compare of fossil fuels such as petrol, diesel, gas has con-
sil fuels and industrial activities covers up to 65% of total global tributed in the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions
GHG[2]. And in addition to more GHG according to World Business (GHG). The potential saving in the GHG emission in EVs are about
Council for Sustainable Development report, estimates that the 90%, for HEV is about 25%, for PHEV is about 50–80% [6]. In EV
quantity of light-duty vehicles will increase to 1.3 billion up to application energy storage have an important role as they regulate
2030 and by 2 billion by 2050 [3]. Hence there would be a drastic and control the flow of energy. There are various factors for select-
change in overall climate change, urban air pollution, depletion in ing the appropriate energy storage devices such as energy density,
non-renewable energy sources. These all concerns have pushed the power density, cycle efficiency, self-charge and discharge charac-
researcher and manufacturers to shift new technologies in the teristics, life cycles [7]. With the use of heavy metals for battery
automotive industry. manufacturing, the electricity mix used for charging, disposal of
battery and vehicles are the important parts in life cycle of an
EVs, which need to be identify the potential sources of environ-
⇑ Corresponding authors. mental impacts. EVs are increasing in the world-wide market at
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (G. Dwivedi), puneet.verma@connect. very fast rate but also facing some technological challenges in
qut.edu.au (P. Verma). the development work. Due to that, the environmental impact

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.01.666
2214-7853/Ó 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the International Conference on Advancement in Materials, Manufacturing and Energy
Engineering (ICAMME-2021).
S. Verma, G. Dwivedi and P. Verma Materials Today: Proceedings 49 (2022) 217–222

associated with the vehicle manufacturing phase, fuel cycle phase, 2.1.1. Goal and scope definition
use phase and recycling phase of the EVs need to be analysed. Goal and scope definition phases ensure that LCA is performed
for a functional unit in a predefined system boundary and analysis
2. Evaluation technique period. The system boundaries can be broad or narrow type,
depending on the product or service that needs to be analyzed
In general life cycle of vehicle are governed by various factors [9]. Due to the complex nature of the modern supply chain, the
includes technical specification, supply and resources of energy, broad nature of system boundaries helps analyse which process
in-use phase and production and recycling technologies as shown results in the greatest environmental concern. System boundary
in Fig. 1. The main parameter in technical specifications is the defines which processes should be included in the LCA analysis,
propulsion system, which aspect is always observed by the cus- depending on the hypothesis made at the initial phase, intended
tomer while purchasing to balances of resource and energy con- application, and the cut-off criteria. Functional unit defines the ref-
sumption. Internal combustion engine is used in a conventional erences to which input and output can be inter-related. This allows
propulsion system; which main resources are being during in-use comparison of two essential different systems [10]. The analysis
phase as the fossil fuel consumption. While in the case of EV the period puts an adverse effect on the LCA results, as the energy con-
main resources are utilized in the manufacturing phase, as high sumption during the process changes over time. LCA results quality
effort is utilized during the manufacturing of battery, storage sys- also depends on the data quality that decides their credibility.
tem, and drivetrain. In this way supply of resources and energy
represents a second parameter and the third is defined by manu- 2.1.2. Inventory analysis
facturing technology and recycling method by the end-of-life The inventory analysis phase analyses the amount of energy
phase product. Finally, the in-use phase has life cycle-related con- and materials consumed or produced at each node of the supply
siderations, it includes transportation demand, individual user chain [11]. It involves three major steps: construction of flow chart
driving profile, and the utilized energy and resources (fuel and which consists of raw materials, manufacturing process, transport,
electricity) in maintaining total balance [8]. uses and waste management, secondly collection of data for mate-
To analyse the environmental and economic impact of waste rial inputs, products and by-products and solid waste, air and
generated over the whole life cycle, two evaluation techniques water emissions and lastly calculation of each of the relation to
are used, i.e. life cycle assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost (LCC) the functional unit [12].
analysis.
2.1.3. Impact assessment
2.1. Life cycle assessment This phase is used to calculate the total environmental impact
which is followed by the inventory analysis. Environmental
According to International Organisation for Standards (ISO), ISO impacts include eutrophication of freshwater, marine and terres-
14,040 and ISO 14,044 are widely recognized for conducting LCA, trial, human toxicity level, ozone depletion level, land transforma-
to quantitatively analyse the environmental impact of the given tion and climate change. For each of the impact factors category
product or system through its lifespan, from raw materials utiliza- indicators are selected, as equivalent mass of CO2 is used as indica-
tion to the recycling or disposal of the system. tors while reporting the climate change impacts. There are several
In general, LCA is described in major four phases: 1. goal and models for the characterisation such as Tool for reduction and
scope definition, 2. inventory analysis, 3. impact assessment, and assessment of chemicals and other environmental impacts (TRACI)
4. interpretation. developed by US environmental protection agency, ReCiPi, avail-

Fig. 1. Factors governing the life cycle of vehicle.

218
S. Verma, G. Dwivedi and P. Verma Materials Today: Proceedings 49 (2022) 217–222

able water remaining per area (AWARE) method used in Open LCA by various institutions and organization in recent years, due to
etc. high demand of forecasting the life cycle and analyse the envi-
ronmental impact of their product and service, to make it more
2.1.4. Interpretation economical, feasible for the market and customer. The LCA soft-
This is the final stage of the LCA for the systematic approach to ware computes the various data available through spreadsheets,
final interpretation of the assessment result. In this phase the excel data, and the database available by various cloud storage
assessment result is summarised, evaluate and concluded based of institutions, environmentalists, and industrial sectors [19].
on the LCA analysis. The results from the inventory analysis and This section summarises the common LCA tools and software
impact assessment are summarised in this phase. The main pur- used by the researcher and industry persons, as shown in
pose of this phase to determine the level of confidence in the final Table 1.
results and communicate it fair and accurate manner. The most popular and commonly used software were GaBi,
SimaPro, Umberto, and Open LCA as they offered a variety of char-
acteristics. Out of all the tools, GaBi and SimaPro have been in the
2.2. LCA types
market for more than 15 years and are used most commonly. But
both of them have high license pricing and closed code. Another
The whole life cycle of EV is divided into three main stages cra-
preferred tool is Umberto, developed by ifu Hamburg, as this soft-
dle to gate, cradle to grave, and cradle to cradle, and the sub-stages
ware is more complicated than GaBi and SimaPro and the license
as well to tank, tank to wheel, and well to wheel as shown in Fig. 2.
price is almost the same, but it doesn’t provide any additional fea-
1. ‘‘Cradle to gate” LCA, is a partial product life cycle from raw
tures as previous software’s. Open LCA is open source software and
material (cradle) to the vehicle production factory gate (before it
it is easy to use and allows the user to calculate all the stages asso-
is delivered to the consumer) phase only. The use and recycling
ciated with the LCA. This software was developed by Green Delta,
phase is eliminated in this case [13].
with the support of the Pe-International (developer of GaBi) and
2. ‘‘Cradle to grave” LCA, is a full life cycle of EV from raw mate-
the PRé-Consultants (developer of SimaPro) and UNEP (United
rial processing (cradle) to the disposal phase (grave). It includes
Nations Environment Programme). Another advantage of this soft-
assembling, maintenance, and refuelling during its full life cycle
ware is that it allows the user to modify the source code and work
and finally dismantling and recycling of its components [14].
with different databases used by GaBi and other software’s. Ini-
3. ‘‘Cradle to cradle” LCA, is a closed-loop life cycle of EV in
tially, Open LCA was designed for analysing the environmental
which recycled product and leftover of construction work is again
impact of products and processes, but now it can analyse economic
used at the raw material processing stage (cradle). It helps in min-
aspects also [20].
imizing the environmental impact of products and encourage man-
ufactures towards sustainable production, incorporate social
responsibility into product development. 2.4. Life cycle cost analysis
Well to wheel LCA is specially used for transport fuel and vehi-
cles, which focuses on the life cycle of energy provider to propel The life cycle cost (LCC) of the system is defined as the sum of
the vehicle, such as gasoline or electricity [15]. It can be further total cost experienced during its life span [21]. LCC included all
divided into well to tank phase, which focuses on the energy the costs experienced from the point at which a decision is made
source to the tank storage of the vehicle [16], and tank to wheel to design a system through operational life to the disposing of
phase, which focuses on the energy carrier as tank to the propul- the product or system. LCC analysis helps the engineer to analyse
sion system of the vehicle during its operation [17]. Well to wheel the total costs involved in the system/product production rather
analysis is used to analyse the energy conversion efficiency of the than just the initial cost of purchasing, manufacturing, and trans-
vehicle, total energy conversion, carbon footprint, emission portation, as the overall cost exceeds many times over of these
impacts [18]. costs [22]. LCC can be divided into two major parts first cost of
ownership which includes (procurement cost, depreciation cost,
2.3. LCA tools interest, inflation, and disposal cost) and second cost of operations
which includes (operations, maintenance, downtime, obsoles-
LCA tools and their related software are for fast computing cence, operator training, cost of inventory). Fig. 3 explains major
and analysing the large amount of data have been developed cost elements of LCC analysis [23].

Fig. 2. Representation of different types of LCA for EV.

219
S. Verma, G. Dwivedi and P. Verma Materials Today: Proceedings 49 (2022) 217–222

Table 1 Table 2
LCA tools and software. Life cycle cost analysis findings of various authors.

Tools Developer Description Year of Location Key Findings References

analysis
GaBi Pe-International It is a powerful life cycle
assessment engine that supports 2012 Portugal BEV is not economically competitive with [28]
LCA, LCC, LCR to make the most the ICEV despite lower operating costs
informative decision for the due to higher acquisition costs at the
manufacturer and any product life initial stage. As the operating cost of BEV
cycle, everything from a matchstick was 0.024 €/km while that of ICE was
to an airplane. 0.054 €/km. And the higher acquisition
SimaPro PRé-Consultants It is used to collect, analyse and cost was 0.18 €/km for BEV and 0.10 €/km
monitor the sustainability for ICEV.
performance of any product and 2013 USA There is a reduction of 20% in lifetime cost [29]
service such as water and carbon by selecting hybrid vehicles in place of
footprint, sustainable reporting, conventional vehicles. And it offers a
environmental product declaration. more robust and cost-effective
It provides full transparency and configuration for a wide variety of driving
avoids the black box design process range. Lower battery cost combined with
to ensure the accuracy of the costlier gasoline price makes the plug-in
results. vehicle more economically competitive.
Umberto of Hamburg It is the most flexible and powerful 2015 USA Average LCC for an ICEV was 87,208 $ [30]
tool for modelling, calculating, over vehicle lifetime and for plug-in
visualizing, and evaluating material hybrid EV was 91,487 $ which was
and energy flows. It can calculate highest among all vehicles studied.
carbon footprint, optimize Instead of higher prices, EVs and gasoline
production process, LCA, evaluate extended-range EV shares 40–51% of the
environmental impacts and cost. entire US vehicles.
Open GreenDelta Berlin It is an open-source software. It 2017 USA Maintenance and repairing LCC of battery [31]
LCA provides professional LCA and heavy-duty truck (HDT) are the lowest in
footprint analysis with widely comparison of gasoline, CNG powered
available database, uncertainty HDT, due to there are fewer fluids that
approximation, provides need to be changed and less moving parts
parameters at various levels from which leads to low maintenance
process to projects. requirement.
CMLCA Leiden University, Institute It is an open-source software with 2020 China LCC of EV is 9% higher than the ICEV [15]
of Environmental Sciences, no database and support. It under Beijing driving cycle due to the
Holland provides calculation of LCA, social higher retail price of EV in 2020. LCC gap
LCA, life cycle sustainability between EV and ICEV could increase to
assessment, I/O analysis, eco- 18–22% under low mileage situation.
friendly analysis, hybrid LCA, LCC.
There is no graphical
representation and flow diagrams,
which don’t contain any impact For automobile life cycle studies, LCC can be formulated by [24]:
assessment data.
GEMIS Oeko Institute, Germany GEMIS (Global Emissions Model for
integrated systems) is an open- Total LCC
X = Purchasing cost
source software with a free
þ i¼1 ðoperationcostforascheduledyear i
n
database. It takes account all
processes from extraction of raw þ Scheduledmaintenancecost i þ Costduetoobsolescencei Þ
materials to the final energy or þ cardisposalcost ð1Þ
product output, it also adds
auxiliary energy sources for The majority of EV LCC analysis focuses on the battery cost as
transportation, construction of the most important factor to the higher price of current EVs. The
materials and systems. retail cost of a lithium-ion battery is around 300$/KWh, for Nissan
Mobius Eco chain Technologies, It provides companies to measure
Leaf EV of 24KW battery will cost 72000$, which plays a major role
Netherland and understand the environmental
footprint of their product, company, in the total cost of the EV [25]. Total LCC results of an EV are highly
value chain and take the most dependent on the assumption made in the modelling of EV life
effective measures. It has an cycle and scope of the study. Diao et al [26] developed a model
extensive database of + 10000
for the total consumer LCC of EV that considers the purchasing
datasheets.
phase, the operating cost, and disposal phase. The purchasing
phase is associated with retail cost, insurance cost, charger cost,
service tax, and third party insurance. While the operating cost is
associated with electricity bills, maintenance, tire replacement,
insurance, and battery replacement. And the disposal cost includes
the scrap value of the EV and the battery recycling cost [27]. Some
of the LCC key findings by various authors are described in Table 2.

3. LCA results of EV in comparison of ICEV

Comparison of LCA results for various types of EV and ICEV

obtained by various authors are summarised in Table 3, for a func-
tional unit of ‘‘1 Km driven”. Comparison results of various authors
concluded that LCA results vary for each, as each researcher uses
Fig 3. Major cost analysis of LCC analysis. different data for analysis, selection of different software, or differ-
220
S. Verma, G. Dwivedi and P. Verma Materials Today: Proceedings 49 (2022) 217–222

Table 3
LCA results of BEV and ICEV of various authors.

Country/Year Type of analysis Results References

Climate change, kg CO2 eq/km Human toxicity, kg 1,4 DB eq/km
Poland, 2018 Cradle-to-grave BEV 2015: 0.276 BEV 2015: 0.331 [32]
BEV 2050: 0.172 BEV 2050: 0.234
ICEV-petrol: 0.284 ICEV-petrol: 0.085
Canada, 2017 Well-to-wheel BEV: 0.160 BEV: 0.26 [33]
ICEV-petrol : 0.270 ICEV-diesel : 0.230 ICEV-petrol: 0.03
ICEV-diesel : 0.04
Italy, 2018 Cradle-to-grave BEV: 0.129 BEV: 0.027 [34]

ICEV: 0.203 ICEV: 0.00057

Sweden, 2014 Wheel-to-wheel – BEV: 0.460 [35]

ICEV-petrol: 0.27
ICEV-diesel: 0.25
Switzerland, 2015 Wheel-to-wheel BEV 2012: 0.220 BEV 2012: 1.0 [36]
BEV 2030: 0.3
BEV 2030: 0.090 ICEV-petrol 2012: 0.26
ICEV-petrol 2012: 0.30
ICEV-petrol 2030: 0.24 ICEV-petrol 2030: 0.24
ICEV-diesel 2012: 0.26 ICEV-diesel 2012: 0.27
ICEV-diesel 2030: 0.21 ICEV-diesel 2030: 0.25
Italy, 2015 Well-to-tank BEV: 0.155 BEV: 0.136 [37]
ICEV-petrol: 0.300 ICEV-petrol: 0.095

ent source of database. While analysing the LCA of BEV’s and References
ICEV’s, technical characteristics such as the weight of the car with-
out the occupants and baggage, battery weight are the important [1] N.C. Onat, M. Kucukvar, O. Tatari, Conventional, hybrid, plug-in hybrid or
electric vehicles? State-based comparative carbon and energy footprint
factors in governing the environmental impact while analysing at analysis in the United States, Appl. Energy 150 (2015) 36–49, https://doi.org/
manufacturing phase. Next in the use phase, fuel consumption 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.04.001.
and fuel type are the important factors for analysis. Furthermore, [2] Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data | Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions | US
EPA. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-
the date of manufacturing of the vehicle also decides the fuel con- data (accessed Nov. 27, 2020).
sumption, as the newer model consumes lesser fuel as compared to [3] Mobility 2030: Meeting the challenges to sustainability. https://www.wbcsd.
the previous model. As well as the source of power for charging of org/Programs/Cities-and-Mobility/Transforming-Mobility/Transforming-
Urban-Mobility/SiMPlify/Resources/Mobility-2030-Meeting-the-challenges-
the battery of BEV determines the environmental impact, as ther-
to-sustainability-Executive-Summary-2004 (accessed Nov. 27, 2020).
mal power plant, big hydropower plant imposes more environ- [4] S. Fajardo, García-Galvan, F. R., V. Barranco, J. C. Galvan, and S. F. Batlle, We are
mental impact as compared to solar PV and wind-generated IntechOpen , the world ’ s leading publisher of Open Access books Built by
power. As in general comparison, researchers take the region’s scientists , for scientists TOP 1 %, Intech, vol. i, no. tourism, p. 13, 2016, doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/57353.
electricity mix to determine the overall impact of charging in that [5] T.R. Hawkins, B. Singh, G. Majeau-Bettez, A.H. Strømman, Comparative
region. As the source of energy is changing over the passing of year environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles, J.
towards renewables sources in electricity generation for cleaner Ind. Ecol. 17 (1) (2013) 53–64, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-
9290.2012.00532.x.
energy production. [6] C. Tagliaferri et al., Life cycle assessment of future electric and hybrid vehicles:
A cradle-to-grave systems engineering approach, Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 112
(2016) 298–309, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd.2016.07.003.
4. Conclusion [7] H. Abumeteir and M. Vural, The Determining Factors of Selecting Energy
Storage Systems for the Renewable Energy Sources in the Energy- Efficient
Building The Determining Factors of Selecting Energy Storage, IEC6 Proc., no.
The alternative technologies for automobile industry are widely
December, pp. 96–101, 2016.
researched in recent years to tackle the most challenges of the [8] M. Hirz and H. Brunner, ECO-Design in the Automotive Industry – Potentials
world on carbon reduction, developing technology such as EV is and Challenges ECO-DESIGN IN THE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY - POTENTIALS
AND CHALLENGES -, no. June, 2015.
associated with the use of low carbon content fuel and helps in
[9] G. Finnveden et al., Recent developments in Life cycle assessment, J. Environ.
reduction of GHG emissions. This paper presents an overview of Manage. 91 (1) (2009) 1–21, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.018.
LCA and LCC of EV in compare of conventional vehicles. The study [10] G. Rebitzer et al., Life cycle assessment: Part 1: Framework, goal and scope
compares the life cycle GHG emissions level and human toxicity definition, inventory analysis, and applications, Environ. Int. 30 (5) (2004)
701–720, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2003.11.005.
level performed in various countries and concluded that emissions [11] D.B.V. Babu, Life Cycle Inventory Analysis (LCIA) (2006).
level decrease for EV in terms of ICEV but there is an increase in [12] M.Z. Hauschild, Introduction to LCA methodology, in life cycle assessment,
human toxicity level for EV, due to the larger use of metals, chem- Theory Practice (2017).
[13] M. Messagie et al., Life cycle assessment of conventional and alternative small
icals and energy for the production of powertrain, and high voltage passenger vehicles in Belgium, 2010 IEEE Veh Power Propuls. Conf. VPPC 32
batteries. And in terms of cost, EV proved as lower operating cost (2010) 2010, https://doi.org/10.1109/VPPC.2010.5729233.
but has higher overall LCC due to higher acquisition price of batter- [14] P. Baptista, J. Ribau, J. Bravo, C. Silva, P. Adcock, A. Kells, Fuel cell hybrid taxi
life cycle analysis, Energy Policy 39 (9) (2011) 4683–4691, https://doi.org/
ies, uncertainty in pricing of future gasoline and electricity mix and 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.064.
higher initial cost. [15] Q. Qiao et al., Life cycle cost and GHG emission benefits of electric vehicles in
China, Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 86 (2020), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trd.2020.102418.
Declaration of Competing Interest [16] H.L. MacLean, L.B. Lave, Life cycle assessment of automobile/fuel options,
Environ. Sci. Technol. 37 (23) (2003) 5445–5452, https://doi.org/10.1021/
es034574q.
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
[17] L. Gao, Z.C. Winfield, Life cycle assessment of environmental and economic
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared impacts of advanced vehicles, Energies 5 (3) (2012) 605–620, https://doi.org/
to influence the work reported in this paper. 10.3390/en5030605.

221
S. Verma, G. Dwivedi and P. Verma Materials Today: Proceedings 49 (2022) 217–222

[18] N. Brinkman, M. Wang, T. Weber, T. Darlington, Well-to-wheels analysis of [29] O. Karabasoglu, J. Michalek, Influence of driving patterns on life cycle cost and
advanced fuel/vehicle systems - A north american study of energy use, Greenh. emissions of hybrid and plug-in electric vehicle powertrains, Energy Policy 60
Gas Emiss. Criteria Pollut. Emiss. (2005). (2013) 445–461, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.03.047.
[19] A. Jrade, R. Abdulla, Integrating building information modeling and life cycle [30] M. Noori, S. Gardner, O. Tatari, Electric vehicle cost, emissions, and water
assessment tools to design sustainable buildings, Proc. 29th Int. Conf. CIB W78 footprint in the United States: Development of a regional optimization model,
(2012) 173–182. Energy 89 (2015) 610–625, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.05.152.
[20] M. Ormazabal, C. Jaca, and R. Puga-Leal, Analysis and Comparison of Life Cycle [31] B. Sen, T. Ercan, O. Tatari, Does a battery-electric truck make a difference? –
Assessment and Carbon Footprint software, Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput., vol. 281, Life cycle emissions, costs, and externality analysis of alternative fuel-powered
no. January, 2014, doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-55122-2. Class 8 heavy-duty trucks in the United States, J. Clean. Prod. 141 (2017)
[21] B. S. DHILLON, Life Cycle Costing for Engineers. Taylor and Francis Group. (2017) 110–121, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.09.046.
[22] H. P. Barringer, Life Cycle Cost & Reliability for Process Equipment, 8th Annu. [32] D. Burchart-Korol, S. Jursova, P. Fole˛ga, J. Korol, P. Pustejovska, A. Blaut,
Energy Week Conf. Exhib., 1997, [Online]. Available: http://www. Environmental life cycle assessment of electric vehicles in Poland and the
barringer1.com/pdf/lcc_rel_for_pe.pdf. Czech Republic, J. Clean. Prod. 202 (2018) 476–487, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[23] S.D. Ghagare, P.A.S. Suryawanshi, V.D. Jadhav, Life cycle cost methodology for jclepro.2018.08.145.
mixers based on MTTF life cycle cost model, Iarjset 4 (1) (2017) 16–19, https:// [33] Y. Bicer, I. Dincer, Life cycle environmental impact assessments and
doi.org/10.17148/iarjset/ncdmete.2017.05. comparisons of alternative fuels for clean vehicles, Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
[24] Y. S. Wong, W. F. Lu, Z. Wang, and Y. Liu, Life cycle cost analysis of different 132 (2018) 141–157, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.01.036.
vehicle technologies in Singapore, EVS 2010 - Sustain. Mobil. Revolut. 25th [34] F. Del Pero, M. Delogu, M. Pierini, Life Cycle Assessment in the automotive
World Batter. Hybrid Fuel Cell Electr. Veh. Symp. Exhib., vol. 4, pp. 912–920, sector: A comparative case study of Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) and
2010. electric car, Procedia Struct. Integr. 12 (2018) 521–537, https://doi.org/
[25] M. Delucchi, T. Lipman, An analysis of the retail and lifecycle cost of battery- 10.1016/j.prostr.2018.11.066.
powered electric vehicles, Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 6 (2001) 371– [35] A. Nordelöf, M. Messagie, A.M. Tillman, M. Ljunggren Söderman, J. Van Mierlo,
404, https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(00)00031-6. Environmental impacts of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and battery electric
[26] Q. Diao, W. Sun, X. Yuan, L. Li, Z. Zheng, Life-cycle private-cost-based vehicles—what can we learn from life cycle assessment?, Int J. Life Cycle
competitiveness analysis of electric vehicles in China considering the Assess. 19 (11) (2014) 1866–1890, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0788-
intangible cost of traffic policies, Appl. Energy 178 (2016) 567–578, https:// 0.
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.05.116. [36] C. Bauer, J. Hofer, H.J. Althaus, A. Del Duce, A. Simons, The environmental
[27] B.V. Ayodele, S.I. Mustapa, Life cycle cost assessment of electric vehicles: A performance of current and future passenger vehicles: Life Cycle Assessment
review and bibliometric analysis, Sustain. 12 (6) (2020) 1–17, https://doi.org/ based on a novel scenario analysis framework, Appl. Energy 157 (2015) 871–
10.3390/su12062387. 883, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.019.
[28] F. Freire, P. Marques, Electric vehicles in Portugal: An integrated energy, [37] P. Girardi, A. Gargiulo, P.C. Brambilla, A comparative LCA of an electric vehicle
greenhouse gas and cost life-cycle analysis, IEEE Int. Symp. Sustain. Syst. and an internal combustion engine vehicle using the appropriate power mix:
Technol. (2012), https://doi.org/10.1109/ISSST.2012.6227988. the Italian case study, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20 (8) (2015) 1127–1142,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0903-x.

222