The Ecology of Electric & Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Yashpal Singh¹, Deepak Ballani² and Bharati Balaji³

1. Senior Advisor ISMA, Chairman, The Wealthy Waste School India*, Former Director Environment, Government of U.P., India.
2. Director General, Indian Sugar & Bio-Energy Manufacturers Association (ISMA).
3. Director (Legal and Compliance), Indian Sugar & Bio-Energy Manufacturers Association (ISMA**).

*The Wealthy Waste School India, 2/364 Vishal Khand-2, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow-226010, U.P., India, Email-dr.yashpalsingh24@gmail.com, Mob. +91 9415084017.

** Indian Sugar & Bio-Energy Manufacturers Association, C-Block, 2nd Floor, Ansal Plaza, Andrews Ganj, August Kranti Marg, New Delhi- 110049 (INDIA).

Introduction

Emissions from transport represent 14% of India’s energy related CO₂ emissions and are growing very fast. Both passenger and freight transport sectors are dominated by fossil fuels, with oil making up 96% of energy consumption in the transport sector. To stay within a 1.5°C limit, transport sector needs to be decarbonised. (India Climate Transparency report 2020), which is a priority with the the Government of India.

In its order of 27-03-2023 the Honorable NGT has in the matter of OA No. 19 of 2021 adopted the recommendations of the Committee set up for the purposes of dealing with the problems of Pollution and directed that the recommendations of the Committee be implemented. In terms of managing the pollution from the Transport sector the committee has given a number of suggestions. Stepping up on the use of Electric Vehicles has been recommended and it has been specifically stated that, “till the time battery E.V.’s takes over, strong hybrid electric vehicles (HEV’s) that blend fuel and electric power are much more efficient and should be promoted.”

These recommendations have been accepted by the Honorable NGT while finally disposing off the case on 27-03-2023 and the Central Pollution Control Board has been directed to ensure implementation.  The Committee has also recommended that all states should have a policy on Electric and Hybrid Vehicles.

The committee has emphatically stated that vehicles with a blend of fuel and electric power are much more efficient and should be promoted. Ironically, in terms of promotion of HEV’s, the Committee also suggests that HEV’s could only be promoted till the time E.V.’s take over. This is an area of critical concern as HEV’s despite a better efficiency, are being suggested as a make shift arrangement which needs a review. HEV’s are the best option in terms of fuel efficiency and life cycle total Environmental Impacts and may need stronger policy support.

The following paragraphs discuss the Ecology of Electric & Hybrid Electric Vehicles and issues that may need to be examined while formulating any policy on E.V.’s and Hybrid Vehicles.

Power scenario for India and growth of the transport sector

India is heavily dependent on fossil fuels in the generation of electricity. A consideration of energy mix in electrical power generation is important in understanding and comparing the ecological advantages of EV’s with other developed countries with less reliance on coal power.

Source wise, for the year 2021-22, 78.9% electricity generation in India was from thermal sources, 3% was nuclear, 9.7% was Hydro,4.2% was solar and 4.2% was wind. (Agarwal A.K.2023)

 As per the Central Electricity Authority, 2023, “The projected All India peak electricity demand and electrical energy requirement is 334.8 GW and 2279.7 BU for the year 2029-30 as per the draft 20th EPS (Electric Power Survey) projections. The installed capacity by the end of 2029-30 is projected to be 777,144 MW comprising of Hydro 53,860 MW (excluding Hydro Imports 5,856 MW); PSP (Pumped storage project hydroelectric system) 18,986 MW; Small Hydro, 5,350 MW; Coal 2,51,683 MW; Gas 24,824 MW; Nuclear 15,480 MW; Solar 2,92,566 MW; Wind 99,895 MW and Biomass 14,500 MW along with a Battery Energy Storage capacity of 41,650 MW/208,250 MWh. With this installed capacity, the NDC (Nationally Determined Contribution) commitment given by India i.e., the percentage of non- fossil fuel capacity in the total installed capacity is to be 50% by 2030, is likely to be met. The CO2 emissions from the power sector during the year 2029-30 is likely to be 1114 MT. The average emission factor is likely to reduce to 0.477 kg. CO2/kWh net by the year 2029-30”.

As of 2019-20 India sold 2.7 million new vehicles of which 47% were small hatch backs; 15 % were medium sized sedans and 27% were S.U.V.’s. 67% of these vehicles were gasoline, 30% diesel, 4% CNG, 0.1% BEV’s (only 1000 registered), PHEV’s and FCEVs were hardly sold. (Deo 2021) The Government of India targets 30% electric vehicle share of mostly domestically produced BEV’s. (Gode et.al.2021) E. Vs accounted for 4% of new vehicle sales in 2022. (NITI Aayog 2022)

GWP of Vehicle Transport per km ranges from about 200 g. CO₂ eq./km to 240 gm. CO₂ eq./km with lower GWP per km in 2030 scenarios as compared to 2020 scenarios except for China and India. Lower GWP per km in 2030 is due to increased share of electric vehicles in the fleet, however, in case of China and India, GWP per km increase is due to higher carbon intensity of electricity generation in these countries, that is used to power the electric vehicles. (Muley and Singh 2024)

Subsidies and credits at the expense of sustainability

Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV’s) have been defined as zero emission vehicles leading them to be covered by credits and subsides designed to increase market share of BEV’s. This has prompted vehicle manufacturers to make focused efforts at electrification, often at the expense of vehicles capable of using renewable fuels. For BEV’s both the GHG intensity of the electricity used for charging and the GHG emissions associated with battery production are important while biofuels present the problem of indirect GHG emissions due potential indirect land use change when growing feed stock crops. (Andersson and Borjesson 2021)

India aims to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2070. Road Transport currently accounts for 14% of India’s Energy related CO₂ emissions and Energy use and CO₂ emissions from road transport could double by 2050.Estimates indicate that CO2 emissions would peak in the mid-2030’s and fall to about 20% below today’s level by 2050.The additional GHG reductions are expected to be realized equally through stronger energy efficiency improvements in vehicles with internal combustion engines, accelerated electric vehicle uptake and higher biofuel use. After that, electrification especially of cars and trucks is expected to account for most of the additional abatement potential.

India operates two schemes to support electrification of road transport. The Faster Adoption and Manufacturing of Electric Vehicles (FAME) Scheme which provided purchase incentives and charging infrastructure support until July 2022 and the production linked incentive scheme approved on 15-09-2021 to support domestic production of vehicles including electric vehicles.

As a result of policies E.V. sales are likely to reach nearly 35% of total vehicles share in 2030 but in order to bring this sector on line with 2070 goals this share needs to increase to 50%.

It may also be understood that the amount of CO₂ that E.V.’s can avoid will depend on the speed at which India decarbonizes its power sector which currently heavily relies on coal.

The 2018 National Policy on Biofuels aims to increase the share of ethanol and biogenic diesel in future fuel blends. (Pavlenko, N. et.al. 2019) The biomethane share in natural gas blend is also expected to increase till 2040. (IEA 2021)

 It has been suggested that India could become a global leader if it abandons plans to build new coal fired power plants and phases out coal use for power by 2040 (India Climate Transparency report 2020). Removing price distorting subsidies will be essential to facilitate a rapid transition to renewables. HEV’s which are more environmentally sustainable would be most economical if same subsidies were allowed for HEV’s and BEV’s. (Agarwal, A.K. 2023)

The Power mix, decarbonisation and impacts on GWP

In a study carried out by the MIT in 2019 (MIT energy Initiative: Insights into Future mobility Nov. 2019) it was observed that in fossil fuel-based power grids, as the grid is decarbonized, the advantages of electric vehicles get better.

Ha, N-2019 suggests that it is possible to give greater priority to Hybrid vehicles in areas with higher proportion of coal-based power and that Hybrid vehicles have advantages in terms of energy conservation and emission reduction than Internal Combustion engines and electric vehicles in areas with predominantly coal fired power mix. when the energy structure is led by coal fuel power. In this Chinese study of 2019, the life cycle environmental impact of electric vehicles is 1.7 times of the internal combustion engine vehicles and 1.4 times of the hybrid vehicles. Hybrid vehicles have environmental advantage in terms of energy conservation and emission reduction over ICEV’s and BEV’s when the energy sector is led by coal fuel power.

Coal powered power generation can affect the Carbon Footprint, Ecological footprint, Acidification potential and Eutrophication Potential produced by the battery packs even in the running stage. Nuclear power generation can affect the Water Footprint of the battery during operation. In China coal power is not conducive to the sustainable development of BEV. (Zhang et.al.2023.)

Due to the currently high share of coal power in China and India, the life Cycle GHG emissions of BEV’s in these regions is higher than in Europe or the U.S. (Bieker George 2021). For BEV’s both GHG intensity of the electricity used for charging and the GHG emissions associated with battery production are important while biofuels present the problem of indirect GHG emissions due to indirect land use changes when growing feed stock crops.

In terms of tank to wheel emissions, battery powered E.V.’s emit zero greenhouse gases when running. Their carbon foot print comes from charging of the batteries. In switching to 100% renewable fuels (HVO) the CO₂ released in combustion is reclaimed by the Feed stock that provided it as the raw material of the feed. As a result, 100% renewable fuel cars (Such as bio ethanol) have CO₂ emissions of 45g/km2 while 100% renewable diesel (HVO) has CO₂ emissions of 46g/km2 significantly lower than the 117 g/km2 for conventional mix power generation and 58/km2 for green energy sources for power generation. (Crown Oil)

The production of Lithium-ion batteries is a source of emissions for electric vehicles. The use of minerals like lithium, cobalt and nickel requires using fossil fuels to mine those minerals and heat them to high temperatures. Building the 80-kWh lithium-ion battery found in a Tesla-Model 3 creates between 2.5 and 16 metric tons of CO₂. (Exactly how much, depends on the source of energy). This intensive battery manufacturing means that building a new E.V. can produce around 80% more emissions than building a comparable gas-powered car. The major source of E.V. emissions is the energy used to charge their batteries. Emissions from coal power as a source of energy for charging batteries is higher and almost at par with gasoline. In coal heavy west Virginia, the EV created more carbon emissions than the hybrid but less than gasoline. (MIT Energy Initiatives: Insights into future mobility, November 2019)

 The need is for parallel decarbonization of the road transport and power sectors.

Hybrid Vehicles have advantages in terms of energy conservation and emission reduction than internal combustion engine vehicles and electric vehicles when the energy structure is led by coal fuel power. HEV’s have been recommended for southern China and Central China. (Ha N. 2019)

A combination of Electrification and Renewable Fuels the desired option

In a study (Andersson and Borjesson 2021) which examines the life cycle GHG impacts of a car model using 03 variations of electrification (hybrid, plug in hybrid and BEV) it has been observed that electrification in itself may not be sufficient to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from the E.V. fleet by 90% until 2050. They have suggested that a combination of electrification and renewable fuels, such as biofuels and e-fuels is needed to approach climate neutrality in the automotive sector. It has also been suggested that by favoring electrification over renewable fuels, current policy instruments reduce the potential to reach this goal. With specific reference to plug in Hybrid electric vehicles, the study points that their (PHEV’s) lower sized battery packs reduce production phase greenhouse gas emissions compared to battery operated vehicles. PHEV^s also permit a lower use of battery minerals to electrify a larger fleet reducing the sustainability concerns associated with the extraction of minerals to electrify a large fleet of BEV’s. The study also points out that, because of the driving distance of most cars being short, it is sufficient to be powered by a PHEV, which is smaller than a BEV battery. Driving vehicles for short distances with bigger and heavier batteries only adds to the weight of the vehicles as the major portion of the batteries are seldom used. The paper strongly recommends the use of sustainably produced renewable fuels.

Use of renewable fuels have been debated because of land use concerns. Batteries have been estimated to contribute to almost 46% of the total GHG Impact of manufacturing a BEV. (ICCT 2018, Mia Romare and Dahlof 2017, Ellingsen et.al. 2016).    IPCC 2011 and 2019, IEA 2017 and Hansson et.al.2017 regard the global potential for renewable fuels to be limited by the quantity of biomass that can be sustainably produced and e-fuels by the availability of renewable electricity. Renewable fuels do not necessarily have to be sourced directly from biomass but can be synthesized using renewable electricity also. (Yugo and Alba 2019).

Bio fuels from low carbon energy crops, residues and waste-based biofuel feed stocks can significantly contribute to a reduction in life cycle GHG emissions of ICEV’s but land use considerations are critical. An increase of ethanol share from 5% to 20% results in 8% lower-life cycle GHG emissions for the cars registered in 2030. The decarbonization of the Power grid results in 20% to 40% lower GHG emissions over the life time of BEV’s registered in 2030 compared to BEV’s registered today. (Bieker George 2021)

Sugar Cane Ethanol was found to result in a far smaller GWP than a BEV charged with EU electricity whereas sugar beet Ethanol resulted in a slightly higher GWP. Here Coal fired plants accounted for 42% of total fossil fuel capacity of which 28%use coal, 14% have peat or lignite and 22% have oil fired systems. Natural Gas has a 36% share. (Messagie et.al. 2014)

In a study in Brazil published in 2011 (Brazil 2011) ICEV’S fueled with gasoline and sugarcane ethanol compared with BEV’S. Ethanol Vehicles were the best followed by BEV. The Brazilian Power mix then was 81% hydro, 6% bioenergy, 5% coal, 3% oil and 3% nuclear.

For Sweden, in the short term, E85 Flex fuel vehicles are capable of more avoided emissions with E. V’s outperforming them in the long run. E 85 Hybrid electric Vehicles result in the most avoided emissions closely followed by E85 internal combustion engines and then electric vehicles. (Cevello L.D. 2021)

In a comparative study on ICEV’s fuelled with gasoline and sugarcane ethanol with BEVs, in a Brazilian context, it was found that in terms of GWP the ethanol vehicle was the best vehicle followed by the BEV. (Picarelli de Souza et al. 2018)

A BEV powered by Belgian Electricity (53% nuclear, 40% fossil and 7% renewables in 2012) emits less GHG than the alternatives except for a vehicle fueled with E85 Sugarcane. (Boureima F. et.al. 2012)

It is important for policy makers to understand not only the contribution of tail pipe emissions but also the carbon foot print from fuel and electricity production and vehicle manufacturing.

Life cycle GHG emissions of FCEV’s (Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles) using natural gas-based hydrogen are only slightly lower than the emissions of average gasoline-based cars but blue hydrogen and renewable electricity-based hydrogen allow a deep reduction of GHG emissions. Driving FCEV’s solely on renewable electricity-based hydrogen corresponds to the pathway with one of the lowest life cycle carbon intensities second only to driving BEV’s on renewable energies. For driving on e-fuels the required amount of renewable electricity is six times as high as it is for driving BEV’s and the energy demand of driving on electricity-based hydrogen is about 3 times higher than for directly using the electricity for driving BEV’s. (Bieker George 2021)

Food based biofuels and resultant indirect land use change emissions significantly increase the climate impact of their production and the life cycle carbon intensity of biofuels can be similar or even higher than for production and combustion of fossil gasoline or diesel. Food based biofuels could be replaced by advanced, waste and residues-based feed stocks.  The use of hydrogen in road transport should focus on green hydrogen and only truly low carbon biofuels should be incentivized (Bieker George 2021)

Emissions from E.V. could be 51.37 Kg. CO₂ e per 1000 KM when charged with green electricity while with HVO it could be 3.56 kg CO₂ e based on a 75 KWH capacity E.V. capable of 310-mile range vs. a 60-liter diesel engine car with a 600-mile range running on HVO fuel. (Hydrotreated vegetable oil derived from certified waste materials) The production of fully battery powered vehicles contributes around 57 grams per square km (g/km²) of CO₂ when charged with only green electricity but when charged with electricity from mixed sources as in the EU it rises to 117g/km2 of CO₂. For conventional diesel it is 140 g/km2 and for conventional Petrol it is 171 g/km2. Relative to internal combustion engine vehicles, electric cars are still quite inefficient in terms of mileage. An E.V. may be able to drive 310 miles on a fully charged battery (75 kwh) while diesel fueled cars can on an average achieve 600 miles from a 60-liter fuel tank. (Crown Oil)

GHG intensity of the electricity used for charging and the GHG emissions associated with battery production are important while biofuels present the problem of indirect GHG emissions due to potential indirect land use change when growing feed stock crops. (Andersson and Borjesson 2021)

In case of renewable fuels, potential land use change impacts are taken care of using non-crop biomass feed stock such as residues from agriculture and forestry. Energy crops have a potential to be used without causing negative ILUC (Indirect Land Use Change) effects, by using in areas with excess arable lands not used for feed or food production or by integrated food and energy crop production. (Berndes et.al 2013)

Renewable fuels do not have to be sourced from biomass but can also be synthesized using renewable electricity.  Called ‘e-fuels’ they are manufactured using captured carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide together with hydrogen obtained from water split by sustainable electricity sources such as wind, solar and nuclear.  (e-fuels are the synthetic carbon neutral result of blending hydrogen and CO₂ in an electrified environment; e-fuels release CO₂ in the atmosphere when used in an engine but the emissions are equal to the amount taken out of the atmosphere to produce the fuel making it CO₂ neutral overall.)

The production of Biofuels may be limited by the availability of biomass that can be sustainably produced while the production of e-fuels is limited by the availability of renewable electricity (Hansson et.al. 2017).

When combined with renewable fuels, hybrid technology (HEV) can also reduce GHG emissions below the BEV levels. (Andersson and Borjesson 2021) and both electrification and renewable fuels are needed to reach the sector climate goals.

Flex Fuel vehicles advantageous

Flex Fuel vehicles allow all blends of fuel (Gasoline, Petrol, Ethanol,) and may also run on unblended fuels. According to an answer submitted against question no. 898 on 9-02-2024 in the Rajya Sabha there has been no Flex Fuel manufacture in India since 2019. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways has issued an advisory on 27-12-2021 to SIAM to start manufacturing flex fuel vehicles and flex fuel strong hybrid electric vehicles complying with BS-6 norms in a time bound manner and another advisory on 28-10-2023 to all Governments and Union Territories to consumption exemption on Road Tax on flexi fuel vehicles.

India has a huge potential for ethanol which can be used to promote flex fuel vehicles and FFV-SHEV’s. The increased percentage of ethanol (51% to 83%) generates higher savings as compared to petrol and results in higher fuels efficiencies. A lesser amount of minerals and mining is required which leads to lower ecological impacts. The mandatory blending helps formers. In Sweden E85 hybrid electric vehicle result in the most avoided emissions closely followed by E85 ICEV and then Electric Vehicles (Cevello, 2021).

Flex Fuel Vehicle are a significant step towards decarbonization of the transport sector and green mobility.

HEV’S a more sustainable option

A number of studies have been conducted attempting comparisons between electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles, ethanol fueled vehicles and vehicles fueled with other renewable fuels. There have been different views depending on the scope of the studies and the set of test conditions.

In a study carried out at the Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, Agarwal A.K. 2023, has come to the conclusion that HEV’s emit much lower GHG emissions than BEV’s and ICEV’s and also that they have a much lower environmental impact than BEV and ICEV. Agarwal A.K. 2023 also recommends that in order to meet its international commitment of net zero by 2070, India should provide HEV’s as the most environment friendly option. HEV’s operating with E-fuels emerged as the most sustainable way forward in India. The study has also stated that even after applying the current tax and subsidy regimes for BEV’s, ICEV’s were the most economical option and that the HEV was more economical if the subsides as applicable to BEV’s were also applied to HIV’s. The high rate of tax applicable on HEV’s could be rationalised to promote this option. Once BEV’s and HEV’s are provided with a level playing field in terms of the tax and subsidy regimes, HEV’s would become an economically and environmentally sustainable option.

One study found that a small BEV powered by European electricity offered a decrease in global warming potential compared to an ICEV. The study however associated BEV’s with significant increases in human toxicity, fresh water ecotoxicity freshwater eutrophication and metal depletion. (Hawkins et.al.2012)

For mid-sized BEV’s and HEV’s and PHEV the BEV was found with the lowest GWP based on real time drive cycles (Faria Ricardo et.al. 2012) (22).

BEV’s tend to emit less GHG emissions than an ICEV although high speed and load conditions reduced the difference specially when using marginal electricity. (Andersson and Borjesson 2021)

BEV’s are not necessarily better than ICEV’s in terms of other environmental impacts. (Hawkins et.al.2012)

BEV’S impact on environment a concern.

Batteries have been estimated to contribute to almost 46% of the total GHG Impact of manufacturing a BEV. (ICCT 2018, Mia Romare and Dahl of 2017, Ellingsen et.al. 2016)

Scaling up BEV operations will introduce challenges like shortage of minerals for battery production and increased mining with higher impacts on human toxicity and fresh water ecotoxicity. Increased demand of mineral could promote deep see mining (EEA 2018) which could have severe impacts on sensitive deep sea eco-systems.

GHG associated with lithium-ion battery materials and production account for 2-5% of life cycle emissions from PHEV’s. The reduced liquid fuel use could leverage limited cellulosic ethanol resources. (Samaras and Meisterling 2008)

Achieving a 30% global market share of electric vehicles by 2030 requires a tripling of the current global supply of lithium, more than a doubling of the cobalt supply and an almost 50% increase of nickel. (IEA 2019). Switching 100% to BEV’s may deplete the current known and economically exploitable land reserves of lithium, cobalt, nickel and manganese within 2 to 33 years (Muelaner JE 2020). Resorting to deep sea mining would put a great stress on deep sea ecosystems. The cobalt requirement in itself would (for 100% global BEV) mean mining of about 5000 sq. kms of sea bed annually (Muelaner JE 2020). Being characterized by slow reproduction and growth, deep sea ecosystems have slowed or even improbable recoveries from damage. Deep sea ecosystems are a potential source of pharmaceuticals, bio materials and other genetic resources and contribute critical carbon sequestration and reduce GHG content in the atmosphere. Full electrification of the automotive industry would also lead to adverse effects on ocean ecosystem and subsequent carbon release. (European Commission 2019)

To minimize the sustainability issues of battery production, electric road system (ERS) which enables batteries to be charged while in motion would enable smaller batteries as the battery is needed only when travelling off the ERS (into urban areas). ERS (via overhead lines, conductors in the roadway or magnetic fields on roads) is technically and economically feasible. (Andersson and Borjesson 2021, Taljegard M, et.al.2020)

Recycling can reduce the carbon footprint of vehicle production. (Slowik et.al.2020) Rare elements are limited in availability. Attempts are being made to recover them as much from discarded batteries. This can help recover 30% of energy. After the recycling of 1 kg electric battery, the substances that are released in solids, water and air add 0.24 kg. slag and 30g. toxics to solids, 0.1 Kg. Sb, Hg, Ni, Pb, Cd to water; 5g Pb, Cd, Cu, Zn, As, Ni to Air.  The recycling process is potentially harmful. (Racz A.A. et.al.2014)

The BEV is always the more impacting vehicle in the lower mileage range due to the high global warming emissions generated during the production phase. In the same distance range, the HEV with a smaller battery shows a slightly higher impact than the ICEV. It was found that The HEV becomes less impacting than the ICEV after 32500 KM (Say 3 yrs. of utilization), the BEV reveals less impacting than the ICEV after 41250 KMS and less impacting than HEV after 46250 KMS. (Countries with low carbon foot print of energy mix). However, in countries with a high carbon footprint such as Poland, the GWP impact of both ICEV and HEV remains always lower than BEV. The replacement of the Battery after 160,000 km causes a sharp increment in the environmental impact caused by BEV. (Pipitone, E. et.al., 2021)

BEV manufacturing phase determined the highest environmental burdens mainly in the toxicity categories as a result of use of metals in the battery pack, however the GHG emission in the use phase were half as recorded for the ICEV use phase. The ICEV demonstrates a higher total global warming than BEV’s in the use phase but almost half that of BEV in the manufacturing (production and use of metals, chemicals etc.). The abiotic damage potential (ADP) was also almost similar for ICEV’s and BEV’s. In case of Humans toxicity potential, the total burden of EV’s is higher than that of ICEV’s. (Carla Tagliaferri et.al. 2016)

Using non fossil fuel sources for electricity and Hydrogen production may improve the Global Warming Potential of BEV’S over other options but in terms of acidification, particulate matter and toxicity BEV’S perform worse than the modern fossil fuel cars. (Bauer et.al. 2015) The authors suggest that the electrification of road transportation should be accompanied by an integration of life cycle management in vehicle manufacturing chains as well as energy and transport policies in order to counter potential environmental drawbacks.

The production phase of the electric vehicle and specially the production of the lithium-ion battery is a critical phase with a strong impact is terms of terrestrial acidification, particulate matter formation and mineral resource deployment. The environmental impacts, in these areas of concern, generated by the BEV are much higher than an ICEV (50% to 500%) because of the high energy requirement for the production of Lithium-ion batteries, particle emissions from battery production, large use of minerals such as cobalt, nickel and copper and in the coal dominant electricity mix of China which is the largest producer of lithium-ion batteries in the World. In contrast in regard to the Global warming effect and the fossil sources deployment the BEV is confirmed to be the least impacting vehicle if the energy used for vehicle population is being generated from renewable sources. (Pipitone, E. et.al., 2021)

The introduction of electric vehicles in the market should be carefully monitored with LCA, avoiding focus on just Global warming at the cost of causing huge impacts/ increments on less considered but equally harmful categories.

Electric Vehicles fare better than internal combustion engines in terms of abiotic depletion potential, global warming potential and ozone depleting potential but in terms of aspects like acidification potential, eutrophication potential, fresh water eutrophication potential, marine eutrophication potential and photo chemical potential, Electric Vehicles compare badly with the Hybrid vehicles and ICEV’s. Hybrid Vehicles have advantages in terms of energy conservation and emission reduction than internal combustion engine vehicles and electric vehicles when the energy structure is led by coal fuel power. HEV’s have been recommended for southern China and Central China. (Ha N. 2019)

The results of the environmental impact comparison also confirmed that hybrid vehicles are an excellent alternative to ICEV. The HEV reveals a GWP and Fossil Fuel impact in the order of 85% to an equivalent ICEV while maintaining acidifying and particulate emissions much below the high levels of BEV. (Pipitone, E. et.al., 2021)

The Global warming impact of a BEV during its entire life amounts to roughly 60% of an equivalent ICEV while acidifying emissions and particulate matter were doubled. The HEV presented an excellent alternative to ICEV with about 85% of emissions as compared to ICEV and almost similar terrestrial acidification and particulate matter emissions as compared to ICEV’s. In regard to the mineral source deployment the production of lithium-ion batteries is a serious concern. The environmental impact of a BEV may be altered by the life time mileage of the vehicle and the carbon foot print of the electricity used may nullify the ecological advantage of BEV. (Ha N. 2019)

Mining for battery production produces more risks to human toxicity and fresh water ecotoxicity than conventional fuels.

Ha, N. 2019 has concluded that HEV’s and BEV’s are better than ICEV’s in their Abiotic depletion potential, Global warming potential and Ozone depletion potential. In terms of acidification potential, eutrophication potential, fresh water eutrophication potential, marine eutrophication potential and photochemical potential, the impact of electric vehicles is greater than that of Hybrid vehicles and Internal combustion vehicles and that at present improving production technology and reducing the consumption of energy during production phase are effective measures to reduce the environmental impact of internal Combustion Engine Vehicles and Hybrid vehicles of China.

For Battery production the estimates for greenhouse gas emissions range from 30 to 494 Kg CO₂-equivalent per kwh (Mia Romare et.al.2017). This range has been observed to be 150-200 Kg/Kwh. contributing to almost 31-46%   of the total GHG impact due to manufacturing a BEV (Andersson and Borjesson 2021). Another estimate suggests this range to be 61-106 Kg/Kwh excluding the end-of-life emissions included in other estimates. (Emilsson and Dahllof 2019, Dai Qiang et.al 2019)

Conclusion

India is heavily dependent on fossil fuel for the generation of electricity and would still need to depend on coal and fossil fuel power for 50% of its power needs by 2030. As a result of policies E.V. sales are likely to reach 35% of total vehicle share in 2030 but this may have to increase further to bring it in line with the 2070 zero emission commitments. Battery operated vehicles may be zero emission vehicles while running but the production of batteries creates major ecological implication which coupled with the power requirements in charging and the energy requirements in mining makes them a questionable option in terms of total Life Cycle Assessment of environmental impacts specially in regions relying heavily on fossil fuel-based power. India is also pursuing a policy to increase the share of ethanol, biogenic diesel and other renewables in future fuel blends. Phasing out coal use for power would be of great advantage to the country for sustainable electrification efforts.

HEV’s have been observed to be more environmentally and ecologically acceptable as compared to BEV’s and would certainly be more economical if similar subsidies and tax regimes applicable to BEV’s is applied to HEV’s, the HEV’s are the most economical and environmentally sustainable option. Incentivising HEVs and FFVs would lead us to low carbon &geo-political resilient pathway.

It has been variously suggested that a combination of electrification and renewable fuels such as biofuels and e-fuels is needed to achieve climate neutrality in the transport sector. This may reduce GHG emission below BEV levels. Shorter driving distances may not favour BEV’s because of heavier batteries adding to the weight of vehicle and the full potential of BEV’s remaining unutilised. The contribution of biofuels and renewable fuels is significant in the reduction in life cycle GHG emissions and the land use concerns could be addressed by growing non-food feed stock in arid and degraded lands and practicing integrated food and energy crop-based intercropping. Sugar Cane Ethanol has been observed to result in a far lesser GWP than a BEV charged with coal and other fossil fuel-based electricity. Decarbonization of the power sector is absolutely imperative for net zero targets. Fuel cell Electric Vehicles drawn on blue hydrogen and renewable electricity-based hydrogen offer deep GWP reductions.

In addition to the high global warming potential in the manufacturing of a BEV, it cannot be ignored that BEV’s are also associated with significant ecological impacts in the manufacture and recycling of batteries. Increased production of batteries will introduce shortage of minerals and increased mining from both terrestrial and marine sources. This would lead to higher impacts. Increased mining for Lithium, Cobalt, nickel and manganese may deplete these from land in 2 to 33 years and resorting to deep sea mining will negatively impact the marine ecosystem beyond recovery with loss of natural and genetic resources, loss to terrestrial and deep-sea ecology, and the carbon sequestration capabilities of the Ocean. Disturbing the marine ecology will further release the already sequestered carbon in the oceans leading to added GHG emissions. The recycling process of used batteries is also harmful as it introduces significant addition of toxics and rare elements like Pb, Sb, Cd, Cu, Zn, Ni to water, land and air.

With the advantages that HEV has to offer over ICEV’s and BEV’s, HEV’s with renewable fuels and flex fuels may be considered as a preferred option. A decarbonization of the Power and the transport sector should be aggressively pursued.

It is important for policy makers to understand not only the contribution of tail pipe emissions but also the total life cycle analysis of environmental impacts and carbon foot print from fuel and electricity production and vehicle manufacturing.

There appears to be a need to decarbonise the power sector and use a combination of measures like electrification through a mix of FFV’s, FFV-SHV’s,  BEV’S, HEV and PHEV and ICEV’S based on biofuels and other renewable fuels like HVO’S and increasing non-food biofuel feedstock, increasing the share of Ethanol and other biofuels and using green hydrogen. There is also a need to examine all available technologies in terms of their economics and total environmental impacts based on a Life Cycle Assessment rather than considering only from the view of the Global Warming potential.

References

1. Andersson, O. and Borjesson, P. 2021. The greenhouse gas emissions of an electrified vehicle combined with renewable fuels: Life Cycle Assessment and Policy implications. Applied Energy 289 (2021) 116621 Elsevier Ltd. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261921001562
2. Agrawal, A.K. Dr. 2023. LCA and TCO analysis of BEV’s, HEV’s and ICEV’s. Engine Research Laboratory, I.I.T. Kanpur. https://www.iitk.ac.in/erl/Downloads/LCA%20and%20TCO%20Analyses%20of%20BEVs,%20HEVs,%20and%20ICEVs.pdf
3. MIT Energy Initiatives: Insights into future mobility, November 2019. Ask MIT Climate. MIT climate portal. https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-definitely-better-climate-gas-powered-cars
4. Bauer Christian, Hofer Johannes, Althaus Hans-J¨ org, Del Duce Andrea, Simons Andrew. The environmental performance of current and future passenger vehicles: Life cycle assessment based on a novel scenario analysis framework. Appl Energy 2015;157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.019.
5. Bieker George 2021. A Global comparison of the Life Cycle Green House Gas emissions of Combustion Engine and Electric Passenger Cars. The International Council on Clean Transportation. https://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Global-Vehicle-LCA-White-Paper-A4-revised-v2.pdf
6. Boureima F, Messagie M, Sergeant N, Matheys J, Van Mierlo J, De Vos M, et al. Environmental assessment of different vehicle technologies and fuels. WIT Trans Built Environ 2012;128. https://doi.org/10.2495/UT120021.
7. Brazil 2011 (p.338) ieablob.core WEO 2013.pdf https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2013
8. Berndes G, Ahlgren S, Borjesson P, Cowie A. Bioenergy and land use change – state of the art. WIREs Energy Environ 2013; 2:282–303. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/234060797_Bioenergy_and_Land_Use_Change-State_of_the_Art
9. CarlaTagliaferri, Sara Evangelisti, Federica Acconcia, Teresa Domenech, Paul Ekins, Diego Barletta, Paola Lettieri. 2016 Life Cycle assessment of future electric and hybrid vehicles: a cradle to grave systems engineering approach. Chemical Engineering Research and Design Volume 112, August 2016, Pages 298-309 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0263876216301824
10. Cevello, L.D. 2021. GHG emission comparison between E85 Flex fuel vehicle and EV uptake. Uppsala Universitet. Department of Earth sciences, Campus Gotland. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1577695/FULLTEXT01.pdf
11. Crown Oil. Renewable Fuel or Electric Vehicles? which is better for the Environment. https://www.crownoil.co.uk/news/renewable-fuel-or-electric-vehicles-which-is-better-for-the-environment/#:~:text=CO2%20emissions%20of%20a%20battery%20EV%20vs%20renewable%20fuel&text=When%20you%20take%20into%20account,better%20for%20the%20carbon%20cycle.
12. Central Electricity Authority, 2023. Report On Optimal Generation Capacity Mix For 2029-30, Version 2.0, April 2023 Government of India Ministry of Power. https://cea.nic.in/wp-content/uploads/notification/2023/05/Optimal_mix_report__2029_30_Version_2.0__For_Uploading.pdf
13. Dai Qiang, Kelly Jarod C, Gaines Linda, Wang Michael. Life cycle analysis of lithium-ion batteries for automotive applications. Batteries 2019; 5:48. https://www.mdpi.com/2313-0105/5/2/48
14. Deo, A. 2021. Fuel consumption from new passenger cars in India: Manufacturers’ performance in fiscal year 2019–20. Retrieved from the International Council on Clean Transportation, https://theicct.org/publications/fuel-consumption-pv-india-apr2021
15. EEA 2018. EEA report no 13/2018. Electric vehicles from life cycle and circular economy perspectives, TERM 2018: Transport and Environment Reporting Mechanism (TERM) report. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c2046319-0731-11e9-81b4-01aa75ed71a1.
16. Ellingsen Linda Ager-Wick, Singh Bhawna, Strømman Anders 2016. The size and range effect: lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of electric vehicles. Environ Res Lett 2016;11(5). http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/5/054010.
17. Emilsson Erik, Dahll¨of Lisbeth. Status 2019 on Energy Use, CO 2 Emissions, Use of Metals, Products Environmental Footprint, and Recycling. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute; 2019. Lithium-Ion Vehicle Battery Production – Status 2019 on Energy Use, CO2 Emissions, Use of Metals, Products Environmental Footprint, and Recycling (diva-portal.org)
18. European Commission 2019. Climate Action. Reducing CO2 emissions from passenger cars, 2019. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/cars_en.
19. European Commission. Communication from the commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: The European Green Deal. COM (2019) 640. Brussels; 2019. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:52019DC0640
20. Faria Ricardo, Moura Pedro, Delgado Joaquim, de Almeida Anibal T. A sustainability assessment of electric vehicles as a personal mobility system. Energy Convers Manage 2012; 61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0196890412000945?via%3Dihub
21. Gode, P., Bieker, G., & Bandivadekar, A. 2021. Battery capacity needed to power electric vehicles in India from 2020 to 2035. Retrieved from the International Council on Clean Transportation. https://theicct.org/publications/battery-capacity-ev-india-feb2021
22. N., 2019. Comparative environmental impacts of internal combustion engine vehicles with hybrid vehicles and electric vehicles in China. Based on life cycle assessments. E35 Web of Conferences 118, 0210(2019). ICAEER2019. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336254884_Comparative_environmental_impacts_of_Internal_Combustion_Engine_Vehicles_with_Hybrid_Vehicles_and_Electric_Vehicles_in_China-Based_on_Life_Cycle_Assessment
23. Hansson J, Hackl R, Taljegard M, Brynolf S, Grahn M. The potential for electrofuels production in Sweden utilizing fossil and biogenic CO 2 point sources. Front. Energy Res 2017; 5:4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2017.00004.
24. Hawkins Troy R, Singh Bhawna, Majeau-Bettez Guillaume, Strømman Anders Hammer. Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles. J Ind Ecol. 2012 ;17(1). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256048655_Comparative_Environmental_Life_Cycle_Assessment_of_Conventional_and_Electric_Vehicles
25. IEA 2019. Global EV Outlook 2019: Scaling-up the transition to electric mobility. https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2019
26. IEA (International Energy Agency). 2021. India energy outlook 2021. Retrieved from www.iea.org/ reports/india-energy-outlook-2021 India Energy Outlook 2021 – Analysis – IEA
27. India Climate Transparency Report 2020 https://www.climate-transparency.org/media/india-country-profile-2020#:~:text=This%20country%20profile%20is%20part,several%20studies%20by%20renowned%20institutions.
28. ICCT 2018. Briefing. Effects of battery manufacturing on electric vehicle life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions. https://theicct.org/publication/effects-of-battery-manufacturing-on-electric-vehicle-life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
29. Institute of Electric Power Research. Environmental Assessment of Plug-in. California. 2007. http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/CorporateDocuments/SectorPages/Portfolio/PDM/PHEV-ExecSum-vol1.pdf
30. International Energy Agency. (2021, May). Electric power transmission and distribution losses. Retrieved from https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/eg.elc.loss.zs
31. IPCC 2019. Climate Change and Land. Special Report. https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/.
32. IPCC 2011. Renewable energy sources and climate change mitigation. Bioenergy 2011;2. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/renewable-energy-sources-and-climate-change-mitigation/bioenergy/
33. IEA 2019. Global EV Outlook 2019: Scaling-up the transition to electric mobility. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/energy/global-ev-outlook-2019_35fb60bd-en
34. IEA 2017. Technology Roadmap – Delivering Sustainable Bioenergy, 2017. https://www.ieabioenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Technology_Roadmap_Delivering_Sustainable_Bioenergy.pdf
35. Picirellide, Souza, Electo Eduardo Silva Lora, José Carlos Escobar Palacio, Mateus Henrique Rocha, Maria Luiza Grillo Renó, Osvaldo José Venturini 2018 Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional vehicles with different fuel options, plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles for a sustainable transportation system in Brazil. J Cleaner Prod 2018;203. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S095965261832585X?via%3Dihub
36. Messagie Maarten, Boureima Faycal-Siddikou, Coosemans Thierry, Macharis Cathy, Van Mierlo Joeri 2014. A range-based vehicle life cycle assessment incorporating variability in the environmental assessment of different vehicle technologies and fuels. Energies 2014;7. https://doi.org/10.3390/en7031467.
37. Mia Romare, Lisbeth Dahll¨of, 2017. The Life Cycle Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Lithium-Ion Batteries, IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, 2017. In Andersson, O. and Borjesson, P. 2021
38. Muelaner JE 2020. Unsettled Technology Domains for Pathways to Automotive Decarbonization. SAE EDGE Report EPR2020014, 2020. https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/epr2020014/
39. Muley D. and Singh B. 2024. Environmental impacts of COVID–19 responses on passenger vehicle transport scenarios: A life cycle approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 455 (2024) 142309 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652624017578
40. Niti Aayog and International Energy agency 2022. Transitioning India’s Road Transport Sector. Reducing climate and Air quality Benefits. iea.org
41. Pavlenko, N., Searle, S., & Baldino, C. 2019. Assessing the potential advanced alternative fuel volumes in Germany in 2030. Retrieved from the International Council on Clean Transportation, https://theicct.org/publications/potential-advanced-fuel-volumes-germany
42. Pipitone, E. et.al., 2021. A life cycle environmental impact comparison between traditional, hybrid and electric vehicles in the European context sustainability 2021, 13(19)992, https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/19/10992
43. Racz A.A, Muntean I. and Stan S.D. 2014. A look into electric hybrid cars from an ecological perspective. Procedia Technology (2015) 438-443. Elsevier Ltd. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/82692592.pdf
44. Samaras, C and Meisterling K. 2008. Life Cycle Assessment of Green house gas emissions from plug-in Hybrid vehicles: Implications for Policy. Environ.Sci.Technol.2008,42,9,3170-3176. http://web.mit.edu/2.813/www/readings/LCAforPHEVs.pdf
45. Slowik, P., Lutsey, N., & Hsu, C.-W. (2020). How technology, recycling, and policy can mitigate supply risks to the long-term transition to zero-emission vehicles. Retrieved from the International Council on Clean Transportation, https://theicct.org/publications/mitigating-zev supply-risks-dec2020
46. Taljegard M, Thorson L, Odenberger M, Johnsson F. 2020 Large-scale implementation of electric road systems: Associated costs and the impact on CO ₂ Sustainable Transport 2020 ;14(8). https://doi.org/10.1080/5568318.2019.1595227.
47. Yugo Marta, Soler Alba. 2019 “A look into the role of e-fuels in the transport system in Europe (2030-2050). Concawe Rev 2019;28(1). https://www.concawe.eu/wp-content/uploads/E-fuels-article.pdf
48. Zhang, H. et.al. 2023. Life Cycle environmental impact assessment for battery powered electric vehicles at the global and regional levels. SCI.Rep.13, 7952(2023). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-35150-3