Material footprint of electric vehicles: A multiregional life cycle assessment

Abstract Most of the global multiregional studies have looked at material footprint (MF) of either a nation or a region. A product-specific MF analysis, particularly when it comes to Alternative Fuel Vehicles (AFVs), carried out using a multiregional input-output (MRIO)-based life-cycle assessment model creates a valuable knowledge contributing to both the global and national efforts to develop cleaner production. The EXIOBASE v.2 is used in order to analyze global life cycle material footprints of five types of passenger vehicles based on 10 metals (ores of iron, bauxite and aluminum, copper, lead, nickel, tin, uranium and thorium, zinc, precious metal, and other metals) and 9 minerals (chemical and fertilizer materials, clays and kaolin, limestone, gypsum, chalk, dolomite, salt, slate, other industrial minerals, building stones, gravel and sand, and other construction minerals). The novelty of this research is to develop a MRIO-based life cycle assessment approach, utilized for estimating the material footprint of each vehicle alternative considering regional and global supply chains. The results show that the manufacturing phase dominates the life-cycle material footprints of vehicles. The study concludes that the alternative fuel vehicles considered in this study have larger material footprint compared to conventional vehicles under all circumstances assumed by the study. The findings showed that 63% of all material footprints related to entire life cycle of electric vehicles are found in the U.S. territorial boundary. Battery manufacturing places a huge burden on the material footprint of electric vehicles, accounting for over 65% of the direct impacts, and more than half of the total material footprint under the current techno-economic circumstances. The sources of supply of raw materials that are critical to deployment of alternative fuel vehicles should be diversified if the U.S. is to safeguard the sustainable future of the transportation sector.

[1]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  Emergy and end-point impact assessment of agricultural and food production in the United States: A supply chain-linked Ecologically-based Life Cycle Assessment , 2016 .

[2]  Omer Tatari,et al.  Investigating carbon footprint reduction potential of public transportation in United States: A system dynamics approach , 2016 .

[3]  G. Keoleian,et al.  Materials challenges and opportunities for enhancing the sustainability of automobiles , 2012 .

[4]  Arnold Tukker,et al.  Identifying priority areas for European resource policies: a MRIO-based material footprint assessment , 2016 .

[5]  Shigemi Kagawa,et al.  Trends in Japanese households' critical-metals material footprints , 2015 .

[6]  Richard Wood,et al.  Estimating raw material equivalents on a macro-level: comparison of multi-regional input-output analysis and hybrid LCI-IO. , 2013, Environmental science & technology.

[7]  Manfred Lenzen,et al.  Examining the global environmental impact of regional consumption activities — Part 2: Review of input–output models for the assessment of environmental impacts embodied in trade , 2007 .

[8]  S. Giljum,et al.  Materials embodied in international trade – Global material extraction and consumption between 1995 and 2005 , 2012 .

[9]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  Evaluating environmental impacts of alternative construction waste management approaches using supply-chain-linked life-cycle analysis , 2014, Waste management & research : the journal of the International Solid Wastes and Public Cleansing Association, ISWA.

[10]  Dominic A. Notter,et al.  Contribution of Li-ion batteries to the environmental impact of electric vehicles. , 2010, Environmental science & technology.

[11]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  A framework for water and carbon footprint analysis of national electricity production scenarios , 2017 .

[12]  A. Burnham.  User Guide for AFLEET Tool 2013 , 2013 .

[13]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  Integrating triple bottom line input–output analysis into life cycle sustainability assessment framework: the case for US buildings , 2014, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[14]  Shigemi Kagawa,et al.  Global Flows of Critical Metals Necessary for Low-Carbon Technologies: The Case of Neodymium, Cobalt, and Platinum , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[15]  M. Kucukvar,et al.  Material dependence of national energy development plans: The case for Turkey and United Kingdom , 2018, Journal of Cleaner Production.

[16]  Michael Lettenmeier,et al.  Material Footprint of Low-Income Households in Finland—Consequences for the Sustainability Debate , 2012 .

[17]  Heinz Schandl,et al.  The footprint of using metals: new metrics of consumption and productivity , 2015 .

[18]  Thomas Wiedmann,et al.  Integrating ecological, carbon and water footprint into a "footprint family" of indicators: Definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet , 2012 .

[19]  Joeri Van Mierlo,et al.  Environmental and Economic Performance of an Li-Ion Battery Pack: A Multiregional Input-Output Approach , 2016 .

[20]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  Conventional, hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric vehicles? State-based comparative carbon and energy footprint analysis in the United States , 2015 .

[21]  Omer Tatari,et al.  Uncertainty-embedded dynamic life cycle sustainability assessment framework: An ex-ante perspective on the impacts of alternative vehicle options , 2016 .

[22]  Stefan Giljum,et al.  Material Footprint Assessment in a Global Input‐Output Framework , 2015 .

[23]  Omer Tatari,et al.  Comparative life cycle assessment of sport utility vehicles with different fuel options , 2018, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[24]  Stefan Giljum,et al.  Carbon and Materials Embodied in the International Trade of Emerging Economies , 2012 .

[25]  Richard Wood,et al.  Effect of aggregation and disaggregation on embodied material use of products in input–output analysis , 2015 .

[26]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  Integration of system dynamics approach toward deepening and broadening the life cycle sustainability assessment framework: a case for electric vehicles , 2016, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[27]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  Carbon and energy footprints of electric delivery trucks: A hybrid multi-regional input-output life cycle assessment , 2016 .

[28]  Omer Tatari,et al.  Public transportation adoption requires a paradigm shift in urban development structure , 2017 .

[29]  T. Wiedmann.  A review of recent multi-region input–output models used for consumption-based emission and resource accounting , 2009 .

[30]  B. Nykvist,et al.  Rapidly falling costs of battery packs for electric vehicles , 2015 .

[31]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  Energy-climate-manufacturing nexus: New insights from the regional and global supply chains of manufacturing industries , 2016 .

[32]  Omer Tatari,et al.  Light-duty electric vehicles to improve the integrity of the electricity grid through Vehicle-to-Grid technology: Analysis of regional net revenue and emissions savings , 2016 .

[33]  S. Giljum,et al.  The Global Resource Footprint of Nations. Carbon, water, land and materials embodied in trade and final consumption, calculated with EXIOBASE 2.1 , 2014 .

[34]  J. Ober.  Mineral commodity summaries 2017 , 2016 .

[35]  Peter D. Blair,et al.  Input-Output Analysis , 2021 .

[36]  G. Keoleian,et al.  Global Lithium Availability , 2011 .

[37]  Omer Tatari,et al.  Getting to net zero energy building: Investigating the role of vehicle to home technology , 2016 .

[38]  Omer Tatari,et al.  Intuitionistic fuzzy multi-criteria decision making framework based on life cycle environmental, economic and social impacts: The case of U.S. wind energy , 2016 .

[39]  O. Tatari,et al.  Well-to-wheel water footprints of conventional versus electric vehicles in the United States: A state-based comparative analysis , 2018, Journal of Cleaner Production.

[40]  Lin Gao,et al.  Life Cycle Assessment of Environmental and Economic Impacts of Advanced Vehicles , 2012 .

[41]  S. Suh,et al.  The material footprint of nations , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[42]  Anthony Halog,et al.  Systems Thinking for Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment: A Review of Recent Developments, Applications, and Future Perspectives , 2017 .

[43]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  Linking national food production to global supply chain impacts for the energy-climate challenge: the cases of the EU-27 and Turkey , 2015 .

[44]  Holger Weimar,et al.  Physical input-output accounting of the wood and paper flow in Germany , 2015 .

[45]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  A fuzzy data envelopment analysis framework for dealing with uncertainty impacts of input–output life cycle assessment models on eco-efficiency assessment , 2016 .

[46]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  Exploring the material footprints of national electricity production scenarios until 2050: The case for Turkey and UK , 2017 .

[47]  Arnold Tukker,et al.  EXIOPOL – DEVELOPMENT AND ILLUSTRATIVE ANALYSES OF A DETAILED GLOBAL MR EE SUT/IOT , 2013 .

[48]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  Towards Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment of Alternative Passenger Vehicles , 2014 .

[49]  Markus Berger,et al.  Resource Efficiency Assessment—Comparing a Plug-In Hybrid with a Conventional Combustion Engine , 2016 .

[50]  Stefan Giljum,et al.  A review and comparative assessment of existing approaches to calculate material footprints , 2016 .

[51]  Murat Kucukvar,et al.  Application of the TOPSIS and intuitionistic fuzzy set approaches for ranking the life cycle sustainability performance of alternative vehicle technologies , 2016 .

[52]  Arnold Tukker,et al.  Environmental and resource footprints in a global context: Europe’s structural deficit in resource endowments , 2016 .

[53]  Omer Tatari,et al.  Towards greening the U.S. residential building stock: A system dynamics approach , 2014 .

[54]  W. Leontief.  Environmental Repercussions and the Economic Structure: An Input-Output Approach , 1970 .

[55]  Omer Tatari,et al.  The Climate Change-Road Safety-Economy Nexus: A System Dynamics Approach to Understanding Complex Interdependencies , 2017, Syst..

[56]  Joeri Van Mierlo,et al.  Environmental impacts of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and battery electric vehicles—what can we learn from life cycle assessment? , 2014, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

[57]  O. Tatari,et al.  Sustainability assessment of U.S. final consumption and investments: triple-bottom-line input–output analysis , 2014 .

[58]  E. Hertwich,et al.  Carbon footprint of nations: a global, trade-linked analysis. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.