【欧盟】2018年：运输和环境报告机制（TERM）报告--电动汽车从生命周期和循环经济的角度出发.pdf

ISSN 1977-8449Electric vehicles from life cycle and circular economy perspectives TERM 2018 Transport and Environment Reporting Mechanism TERM reportEEA Report No 13/2018Electric vehicles from life cycle and circular economy perspectives TERM 2018 Transport and Environment Reporting Mechanism TERM reportEEA Report No 13/2018Legal noticeThe contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the official opinions of the European Commission or other institutions of the European Union. Neither the European Environment Agency nor any person or company acting on behalf of the Agency is responsible for the use that may be made of the ination contained in this report. Copyright notice© European Environment Agency, 2018Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.More ination on the European Union is available on the Internet http//europa.eu.Luxembourg Publications Office of the European Union, 2018ISBN 978-92-9213-985-8ISSN 1977-8449doi10.2800/77428European Environment AgencyKongens Nytorv 61050 Copenhagen KDenmarkTel. 45 33 36 71 00Web eea.europa.euEnquiries eea.europa.eu/enquiriesCover design EEACover photo © EEA Contents3ContentsElectric vehicles from life cycle and circular economy perspectivesAcknowledgements 5cutive summary 61 Introduction . 101.1 Electric vehicles vehicle types 101.2 Electric vehicles current and future roles 111.3 Importance of a life cycle and circular economy perspective .111.4 Objective and key outputs of this report131.5 Report structure .132 Raw materials stage 142.1 Introduction .142.2 Environmental impacts .152.3 Challenges for raw material supply and processing 172.4 Circular economy perspectives .202.5 Summary minimising the environmental impacts of raw materials .213 Production stage . 223.1 Introduction .223.2 Overview of production impacts .243.3 Factors affecting the environmental impacts of production .273.4 Summary minimising the environmental impacts of BEV production 294 Use stage 304.1 Introduction .304.2 Greenhouse gas emissions 324.3 Health impacts 334.4 Ecosystem impacts 364.5 Factors affecting battery electric vehicle energy consumption and impacts of electricity generation 374.6 The role of electric vehicles in personal mobility 434.7 Summary minimising the environmental impacts of BEV use .455 End-of-life stage . 465.1 Introduction .465.2 Current end-of-life processes 46Contents4 Electric vehicles from life cycle and circular economy perspectives5.3 Future end-of-life needs .485.4 Future reuse and recycling .485.5 Environmental impacts of end-of-life stage .535.6 Summary minimising environmental impacts of the end-of-life stage .566 Summary of key findings 576.1 Climate change impacts 576.2 Health impacts 586.3 Ecosystem impacts .596.4 Synergies with the circular economy .607 Concluding remarks 62Abbreviations, symbols and units 63Glossary 66References . 685AcknowledgementsElectric vehicles from life cycle and circular economy perspectivesAcknowledgementsThe Transport and Environment Reporting Mechanism TERM process is steered jointly by the European Environment Agency EEA and the European Commission Eurostat, Directorate-General for Environment, Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, and Directorate-General for Climate Action.This report was prepared by the EEA, based upon a draft assessment by the European Topic Centre on Air Pollution and Climate Change Mitigation ETC/ACM. The ETC/ACM contribution was led by Alison Pridmore Aether, United Kingdom, supported by Kathryn Hampshire, Richard German Aether and Jaume Fons UAB. The EEA project manager was Andreas Unterstaller.Almut Reichel, Anke Lükewille, Eulalia Peris, Magdalena Jozwicka, Martin Adams all EEA and Simone Manfredi European Commission, Joint Research Centre are thanked for their to this year s report. We gratefully acknowledge comments on the draft version of this report received from EEA member countries and the European Commission.cutive summary6 Electric vehicles from life cycle and circular economy perspectivescutive summaryTERM 2018 a focus on electric vehicles from life cycle assessment and circular economy perspectives Electric vehicles are anticipated to be a key future component of Europe s mobility system, helping reduce impacts on climate change and air quality. Battery electric vehicles BEVs comprised around 0.6 of all new car registrations in the EU in 2017 EEA, 2018a. By 2030, BEVs could be between 3.9 and 13.0 of new car registrations, depending on the EU-wide fleet average CO2target levels set for passenger cars in the future EC, 2017a. There is, therefore, an increasing need to understand BEVs from a systems perspective. This involves an in-depth consideration of the environmental impact of the product using life cycle assessment LCA as well as taking a broader circular economy approach. On the one hand, LCA is a means of assessing the environmental impact associated with all stages of a product s life from cradle to grave from raw material extraction and processing to the product s manufacture to its use in everyday life and finally to its end of life. On the other hand, the concept of a circular economy considers impacts and in turn solutions across the whole societal system. In a traditional linear economy products are made, used and then disposed of, whereas in a circular economy the value of materials and products is kept as high as possible for as long as possible EEA, 2017b. This, in turn, helps reduce requirements for new materials and energy needs, ameliorating environmental pressures. Additional aspects that can be considered within the circular economy concept e.g. Jackson, 2017; Kopnina, 2017; Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2018 include the use of renewable energy and sustainable consumption, e.g. through the shared ownership of goods. Reflecting their relevance to BEVs, these additional aspects are also considered in this report. The aims of this report are to bring together existing evidence on the environmental impact of BEVs across the stages of their life cycle, undertaking where possible comparison with internal combustion engine vehicles ICEVs; consider how a move to a circular economy could reduce these impacts.Key findingsFor the purposes of this report, environmental impacts are grouped under the following themes climate change; health impacts; ecosystem impacts.These are considered in turn below. Although a number of LCA studies were reviewed for this report, providing a quantitative comparison using an up-to-date synthesised dataset is not possible given the different coverage and approaches used in the studies. To provide an internally consistent and comparative summary in graphical , we present results from Hawkins et al. 2013 1, who analysed a broad range of environmental impacts, with vehicle types, life stages and geographic coverage that are well matched to the scope of this report. Climate change impacts Overall, across its life cycle, a typical BEV in Europe offers a reduction in greenhouse gas GHG emissions compared with its ICEV equivalent 1 The LCA pered in Hawkins et al. 2013 was based on compact/mid-sized passenger cars the BEV was based on a Nissan LEAF, the petrol ICEV on a Mercedes A 170, and the diesel ICEV on an average of Mercedes A 160 and A 180, which have comparable size, mass and perance characteristics. Use phase energy requirements were based on the New European Driving Cycle NEDC. A lifetime mileage of 150 000 km was assumed for all vehicles, with the BEV battery lasting for the whole vehicle lifetime. Impacts were normalised relative to the vehicle with the highest impact, which received a score of 1. The results for a BEV with lithium-nickel-cobalt-manganese NCM battery chemistry are presented in all charts. cutive summary7 Electric vehicles from life cycle and circular economy perspectivese.g. Hawkins et al, 2013; ICCT, 2018b. The extent of the difference can depend on a number of factors, including the size of vehicle considered, the electricity mix and whether the BEV is compared with a petrol or diesel conventional vehicle. Hawkins et al. 2013 reported life-cycle GHG emissions from BEVs charged using the average European electricity mix, 17-21 and 26-30 lower than similar diesel and petrol vehicles, respectively detailed in Figure 6.1. This is broadly in line with more recent assessments based on the average European electricity mix e.g. Ellingsen et al., 2016; Ellingsen and Hung, 2018.GHG emissions from raw material and production LCA phases are typically higher for a BEV than for its ICEV equivalent. This is related to the energy requirements for raw material extraction and processing as well as producing the batteries. For the end-of-life stage GHG emissions from both BEVS and ICEVS are low in terms of the overall life cycle Hawkins et al., 2013; Tagliaferri et al., 2016; however, there is much uncertainty around the data. The potential for reuse and recycling of vehicle components is a key area of further research and development. The largest potential reduction in GHG emissions between a BEV and an ICEV occurs in the in-use phase, which can more than offset the higher impact of the raw materials extraction and production phases. However, the extent to which the GHG emissions advantage is realised during the in-use stage of BEVs depends strongly on the electricity mix. BEVs charged with electricity generated from coal currently have higher life-cycle emissions than ICEVs, whereas the life-cycle emissions of a BEV could be almost 90 lower than an equivalent ICEV IEA, 2017a using electricity generated from wind power. In future, with greater use of lower carbon electricity in the European mix the typical GHG emissions saving of BEVs relative to ICEVs will increase. Human health impacts The health impacts considered include air pollution, noise exposure and human toxicity . The first two are particular relevant for BEVs and are therefore considered in detail, despite not aligning neatly with the impact categories commonly reported in LCAs. BEVs can offer local air quality benefits due to zero exhaust emissions, e.g. nitrogen oxides NOx and particulate matter PM. However, BEVs still emit PM locally from road, tyre and brake wear, as all motor vehicles do. For local PM emissions, there is a great deal of uncertainty and variation in the results, depending on the assumptions made around ICEV emissions and on the different estimation s for non-exhaust emissions. In addition, electricity generation also produces emissions. Here, the spatial location of emissions is important. Where power stations are located away from population centres, replacing ICEVs with BEVs is likely to lead to an improvement in urban air quality, even in contexts in which the total emissions of the latter may be greater e.g. Soret et al., 2014. Under these circumstances, the contribution of power stations to regional background levels of air pollution, which also affect the air quality in cities, will probably be outweighed by a reduction in local emissions. As the proportion of renewable electricity increases and coal combustion decreases in the European electricity mix EC, 2016 the advantage in terms of air quality of BEVs over ICEVS is likely to increase in tandem e.g. Öko-Institut and Transport Campello-Vicente et al., 2017. However, there is unlikely to be a large benefit on rural roads or motorways where speeds are higher. The extent of noise reduction will also depend strongly on the proportion of BEVs in the vehicle fleet UBA-DE, 2013. However, proposals for acoustic vehicle alerting systems AVASs on BEVs to mitigate road safety concerns would probably reduce the potential of BEVs to reduce traffic noise.The literature on human toxicity impacts is limited in comparison to that on climate change impacts. However, it suggests that BEV impacts could be higher overall than their ICEV equivalents e.g. Nordelöf et al., 2014; Borén and Ny, 2016. Existing research suggest that the larger impact of BEVs results from additional copper and, where relevant, nickel requirements. Ecosystem impacts The ecosystem impacts of BEVs can be higher or lower than ICEVs, depending on the individual impact. The effects of BEVs on freshwater ecotoxicity and eutrophication can be higher than for ICEVs because of the impacts associated with mining and processing metals and mining and burning coal to produce electricity e.g. Hawkins et al., 2013. The proportion of low-carbon electricity generation and associated reductions in coal production is expected to increase both in Europe and in key battery production locations cutive summary8 Electric vehicles from life cycle and circular economy perspectivesin the future, e.g. China, South Korea and Japan EC, 2016; ICCT, 2018b, which will help to reduce these impacts. Synergies with the circular economy BEVs offer important opportunities to reduce GHG emissions and local air pollution. However, as described above, there is also the potential for increased impacts in other areas, in particular higher human toxicity- and ecosystem-related impacts. However, the environmental impacts of BEVs, and their advantages or disadvantages relative to ICEVs, are influenced by a range of key variables associated with vehicle design, vehicle choice and use patterns, reuse and recycling and the electricity generation mix. Promoting a circular economy approach presents opportunities to influence the future trajectories of these key variables by offering incentives for improvement, which will increase the benefits and reduce the negative impacts of BEVs. For vehicle design, the most important component determining environmental impact is the battery. Here, standardisation of battery design could play a key role in helping ensure future battery reuse and recycling. Complementing this are designs that allow reduced s of raw materials alongside using alternatives at the very start of the process.Consumer expectations with regard to vehicle range will be key to future battery development. Larger heavier batteries provide greater energy storage and in turn vehicle range, and typically this increased vehicle range helps address consumer anxiety around using BEVs. However, larger batteries require a greater quantity of raw materials and energy to produce, resulting in greater environmental impacts across all categories UBA-DE, 2016, and the extra weight also leads to higher in-use energy requirement per kilometre. Impacts across the life cycle will be minimised if the automotive industry is incentivised to provide vehicles with modest ranges with ever-smaller batteries, as opposed to ever increasing ranges and associated increasing battery size. The density of the charging network and the time it takes to charge a BEV are also important factors af