Detailed assessment

7 In this assessment, recycling of a number of materials is accounted for directly in each material production process, based on their global average recycling rates, according to the GREET model methodology. There is no specific accounting for lithium-ion battery recycling.

PAGE | 155

IEA. All rights reserved.

Figure 4.2 provides several key insights:

•For all powertrains, the fuel cycle GHG emissions (orange and yellow in the figure) over the vehicle lifetime outweigh vehicle cycle GHG emissions (dark blue, light blue and green in the figure): vehicle manufacturing, disposal and recycling ranges between 18% (ICE) and 36% (BEV 200 km and FCEV) of the vehicle life-cycle emissions. For a BEV with 400 km range though, this share goes up to 43%.

•BEVs and PHEVs emit the least life-cycle GHG emissions (around 25 tonnes of carbon-

dioxide equivalent [t CO2-eq]) given the assumptions of this analysis, although those of BEVs can be slightly higher with longer drive range. Results may also vary depending on the location of the battery production given differences in the characteristics of battery assembly and the supply chains of battery materials. The GHG emissions performance of

FCEVs and HEVs is slightly higher at 27.5 t CO2-eq, with global average ICE vehicles emissions at 35 t CO2-eq.

•In a BEV with 200 km range, lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries (38 kWh size) with currently available cathode chemistries (NMC 111) account for a third of vehicle cycle emissions and 12% of vehicle and fuel cycle emissions combined. If one assumes a doubling of the range, and thus brings battery capacity to 78 kWh, Li-ion batteries account for slightly half of vehicle cycle emissions and 23% of vehicle and fuel cycle emissions combined.

The relative importance of each life-cycle stage (represented by a different colour in Figure 4.2) can vary widely by powertrain type. As do the areas with the largest potential for CO2 emissions reduction for each type of powertrain.

For ICE vehicles and HEVs, the tank-to-wheel fuel stage accounts for the majority of life-cycle GHG emissions. They can only be reduced by efficiency improvements (provided that they overcome eventual increases in vehicle manufacturing emissions) and indirect measures, such as on-board carbon capture or fuel switching that compensates for tank-to-wheel CO2 emissions (e.g. sustainable biofuels or electro-fuels). The vehicle cycle (components manufacturing, vehicle assembly, disposal and recycling) is the second-largest contributor to ICE and HEV life-cycle emissions.

For BEVs and FCEVs, which are zero-emissions at the tailpipe and for which with 2018 global average carbon intensity of power generation, the wheel-to-well aspect of life-cycle emissions accounts for 56-64%. So reducing the amount of CO2 emissions due to fuel use is the area with the largest GHG mitigation potential. This can be achieved through vehicle efficiency improvements8 and CO2 emissions reduction in electricity or hydrogen production.9 In addition, a reduction in the carbon intensity of electricity generation could also provide GHG emissions

8Electric powertrains are currently three-to-five-times more efficient than internal combustion engines, depending on vehicle weight. Auxiliaries, such as air conditioning can significantly affect the vehicle electricity use. Better vehicle insulation or heat pumps can help in that regard. For example, upcoming model SEAT El-Born is fitted with a heat pump that can, according to the manufacturer, save 60 km of range (SEAT, 2019) and the Audi Q4 e-tron model uses a body paint specifically designed to reflect certain light waves to help keep the interior cool and minimise needs for air conditioning (Audi, 2019). Both models are expected to start production in 2020.

9The variability of the carbon intensity of electricity generation across countries (as low as 9 g CO2-eq/kWh in Norway in 2017) suggests that there is a demonstrated capacity and a viable margin to do so. Carbon capture, utilisation and storage (CCUS) may also make this viable for power generation from fossil fuels. For hydrogen, lowering emissions requires the use of electrolysis and renewable electricity, or the use of steam methane reforming (SMR) coupled with CCUS. However, hydrogen produced by electrolysis requires a significantly higher amount of electricity compared with battery storage, and SMR with CCUS only allows for partial GHG emission reductions.

PAGE | 156

IEA. All rights reserved.

reductions in the vehicle cycle (as processes would be using lower carbon electricity), if the region of use of the vehicle and of manufacturing are the same, or if the emissions reduction from electricity production are global.

Plug-in hybrids can tap the GHG emissions reduction potential areas as for HEVs and BEVs, plus the additional lever of increasing the share of electric driving.

As stated, an important aspect of the analysis of life-cycle emissions is the difference in driving ranges provided by the various vehicle types. A comparison of FCEVs and BEVs illustrates this well. It shows that doubling the drive range of the BEV to the same level of the FCEV diminishes the life-cycle emissions benefit of the BEV relative to the FCEV at the current global average carbon intensity of electricity generation.10 This also holds for a similar comparison with a conventional ICE vehicle. Boosting the BEV to a hypothetical 600-800 km drive range, which likely can be achieved by a benchmark global average ICE vehicle, would significantly cut into the current life-cycle emissions benefit of BEVs, as the required larger battery size would increase the life-cycle emissions associated with the battery roughly proportionally. In practice, such drive ranges are not currently considered among BEV manufacturers, not least to contain BEV costs. Nonetheless, this consideration underscores that rightsizing the drive range of BEVs is important not only for their cost competitiveness, but also from the point of view of their climate benefits. Addressing this while ensuring no loss in convenience for the customer (through e.g. optimised and fast charging infrastructure) will be important moving forward.

Effect of mileage on EV life-cycle GHG emissions

The vehicle cycle of BEVs results in higher GHG emissions than for an equivalent ICE vehicle. However, as BEVs emit less than ICE vehicles in the use stage, BEVs provide GHG emissions savings on a life-cycle basis after a period of use of the vehicle. Relative to an equivalent gasoline ICE vehicle, a mid-size BEV, with a 200 km drive range and assuming the global average CO2 emissions intensity of electricity generation as well as average battery manufacturing GHG emissions of 75 kg CO2-eq/kWh, starts saving CO2 on a life-cycle basis when it has been driven more than 25 000 km (Figure 4.3). For a BEV with a longer range (400 km), the break-even mileage is 60 000 km under the same assumptions. For a vehicle driving 15 000 km annually, used as a central estimate in this analysis, a BEV provides net GHG emissions savings after 1.5 to 4 years of use, depending on the driving range.

With a carbon intensity of electricity generation equal to the 2018 global average, a BEV travelling 150 000 km over ten years (as per our central estimate) saves 23-33% of GHG emissions over its life cycle compared with an ICE vehicle. Savings are maximised for high mileage drivers, at around 32-38% less GHG emissions than an equivalent ICE vehicle at 250 000 km, provided that this does not require a battery replacement. At this mileage level, two-thirds to three-quarters of the vehicle's emissions are from the fuel, as opposed to vehicle manufacturing, disposal and recycling. This is particularly relevant for fleet vehicles or taxis which will cover higher-than-average distances over their lifetime. Moreover, CO2 savings due to mileages that are higher than our central estimate go hand-in-hand with fuel cost savings and an early cost-parity, on a total cost of ownership basis. A lower CO2 intensity

10 The BEV being powered by electricity and the FCEV being powered by hydrogen stemming from steam methane reforming from natural gas.

PAGE | 157

IEA. All rights reserved.

11 The effect of power system CO2 intensity on vehicle life-cycle emissions is shown in Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6.

PAGE | 158

IEA. All rights reserved.

t CO2-eq

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

ICE

PHEV (30% e-driving)

PHEV (70% e-driving)

BEV (400 km range)

BEV (200 km range)

12 The reason for this is the much lower sensitivity of BEV fuel use to changes in vehicle weight in comparison with ICE vehicles, as highlighted in Fuel Economy in Major Car Markets (IEA, 2019a). This is mostly due to the higher efficiency of electric powertrains and the effect of regenerative breaking.

PAGE | 159

IEA. All rights reserved.