Carbon Footprint and Water Footprint of Electric Vehicles and Batteries Charging in View of Various Sources of Power Supply in the Czech Republic
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
3. Results
4. Conclusions
- Electricity for battery charging is the main determinant of the CF and WF for electric vehicles in the Czech Republic. Another important factor is the production of passenger cars.
- The value of carbon footprint of electric vehicles in the Czech Republic is expected to decrease between 2015 and 2050, while the value of water footprint is expected to increase.
- The electricity used to recharge electric vehicle batteries is an important factor of the carbon and water footprints for electric vehicles in the Czech Republic.
- Electric vehicle charging from the electricity mix sources in Czech Republic resulted in reductions in carbon footprint and increase in water footprint.
- The main determinants of carbon footprints for the current to future electric vehicle charging are solids. A decrease in the values of carbon footprint indicators is caused by the reductions in the share of solids (lignite) as the source of electricity generation in the Czech Republic.
- The main determinant of water footprints for the current to future electric vehicle charging is the nuclear power. An increase in the values of water footprint indicators is caused by an increase in the share of nuclear power as the source of electricity generation in the Czech Republic. The main source of the water footprint from nuclear energy is water lost through cooling systems.
- The analyses carried out so far will be used for eco-efficiency assessment of electric vehicles in the Czech Republic.
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- ACEA—European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association. Top 10: Car Producing Countries, Worldwide and EU. Available online: https://www.acea.be/statistics/article/top-10-car-producing-countries-worldwide-and-eu (accessed on 25 October 2018).
- ACEA—European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association. Available online: https://www.acea.be/statistics/tag/category/passenger-cars-production (accessed on 25 October 2018).
- White Paper on the Future of Europe: Reflections and Scenarios for the EU27 by 2025; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2017.
- National Action Plan Clean Mobility; Ministry of Industry and Trade: Prague, Czech Republic, October 2015; p. 161. Available online: https://www.mpo.cz/assets/dokumenty/54377/64225/657999/priloha001.pdfPriloha001.Pdf (accessed on 24 September 2018).
- Ma, H.; Balthasar, F.; Tait, N.; Riera-Palou, X.; Harrison, A. A New Comparison between the Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Battery Electric Vehicles and Internal Combustion Vehicles. Energy Policy 2012, 44, 160–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Günther, H.O.; Kannegiesser, M.; Autenrieb, N. The Role of Electric Vehicles for Supply Chain Sustainability in the Automotive Industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 90, 220–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EU Contemplates Introduction of Minimum Quotas for the Sales of Electric Vehicles. Available online: http://bellona.org/news/transport/electric-vehicles/2017-06-eu-contemplates-introduction-of-minimum-quotas-for-the-sales-of-electric-vehicles (accessed on 26 October 2018).
- Correlation between Electric Car Sales and the Availability of Charging Points, the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA). Available online: https://www.acea.be/statistics/article/interactive-map-correlation-between-electric-car-sales-and-the-availability (accessed on 5 December 2018).
- Folega, P.; Burchart-Korol, D. Environmental Assessment of Road Transport in a Passenger Car Using the Life Cycle Approach. Transp. Probl. 2017, 12, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartolozzi, I.; Rizzi, F.; Frey, M. Comparison between Hydrogen and Electric Vehicles by Life Cycle Assessment: A Case Study in Tuscany, Italy. Appl. Energy 2013, 101, 103–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paulino, F.; Pina, A.; Baptista, P. Evaluation of Alternatives for the Passenger Road Transport Sector in Europe: A Life-Cycle Assessment Approach. Environments 2018, 5, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rievaj, V.; Synák, F. Does electric car produce emissions? Sci. J. Silesian Univ. Technol. Ser. Transp. 2017, 94, 187–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muha, R.; Perosa, A. Energy consumption and carbon footprint of an electric vehicle and a vehicle with an internal combustion engine. Transp. Probl. 2018, 13, 49–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mierlo, J.; Messagie, M.; Rangaraju, S. Comparative Environmental Assessment of Alternative Fueled Vehicles Using a Life Cycle Assessment. In Proceedings of the 14th World Conference on Transport Research, Shanghai, China, 10–15 July 2016; Volume 25, pp. 3435–3445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vandepaer, L.; Cloutier, J.; Amor, B. Environmental impacts of Lithium Metal Polymer and Lithium-ion stationary batteries. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 78, 46–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mathew, M.; Janhunen, S.; Rashid, M.; Long, F.; Fowler, M. Comparative Analysis of Lithium-Ion Battery Resistance Estimation Techniques for Battery Management Systems. Energies 2018, 11, 1490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Omar, N.; Monem, M.A.; Firouz, Y.; Salminen, J.; Smekens, J.; Hegazy, O.; Gaulous, H.; Mulder, G.; Van den Bossche, P.; et al. Lithium Iron Phosphate Based Battery—Assessment of the Aging Parameters and Development of Cycle Life Model. Appl. Energy 2014, 113, 1575–1785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weldon, P.; Morrissey, P.; O’Mahony, M. Long-Term Cost of Ownership Comparative Analysis between Electric Vehicles and Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 39, 578–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, Q. Electromobility Research in Germany and China: Structural Differences. Scientometrics 2018, 117, 473–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eurostat. Energy, Transport and Environment Indicators; Eurostat Statistical Book; European Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2017; Available online: www.ec.europa.eu (accessed on 12 April 2018).
- Energy Policies of Czech Republic 2016 Review. Available online: www.iea.org (accessed on 10 December 2018).
- Jursova, S.; Burchart-Korol, D.; Pustějovská, P.; Korol, J.; Blaut, A. Greenhouse Gas Emission Assessment from Electricity Production in the Czech Republic. Environments 2018, 5, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. The Physical Science Basis. 2013. Available online: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ (accessed on 8 January 2019).
- Hoekstra, A.Y.; Mekonnen, M.M.; Chapagain, A.K.; Mathews, R.E.; Richter, B.D. Global Monthly Water Scarcity: Blue Water Footprints versus Blue Water Availability. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e32688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hoekstra, A.Y.; Chapagain, A.K. Sharing the Planet’s Freshwater Resources. In Globalization of Water; Blackwell Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Hoekstra, A.Y.; Chapagain, A.K.; Aldaya, M.M.; Mekonnen, M.M. Setting the Global Standard. In The Water Footprint Assessment Manual; Earthscan: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Hoekstra, A.Y. Sustainable, efficient and equitable water use: the three pillars under wise freshwater allocation. WIREs Water 2014, 1, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. Ecoinvent 2017—Ecoinvent Database v 3, 2017. Available online: www.ecoinvent.org (accessed on 29 December 2018).
- ISO (2006) ISO 14040:2006 Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
- ISO (2006) ISO 14044:2006 Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines; International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
- Del Duce, A.; Gauch, M.; Althaus, H.J. Electric passenger car transport and passenger car life cycle inventories in ecoinvent version 3. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 1314–1326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Girardi, P.; Gargiulo, A.; Brambilla, P. A comparative LCA of an electric vehicle and an internal combustion engine vehicle using the appropriate power mix: the Italian case study. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2015, 20, 1127–1142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Country | Share [%] | Country | Share [%] | Country | Share [%] | Country | Share [%] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Austria | 2 | Estonia | 0.2 | Italy | 0.2 | Portugal | 1.8 |
Belgium | 2.6 | Finland | 2.6 | Latvia | 0.3 | Romania | 0.2 |
Bulgaria | 0.3 | France | 1.7 | Lithuania | 0.2 | Slovakia | 0.2 |
Croatia | N/A | Germany | 1.6 | Luxembourg | N/A | Slovenia | 0.6 |
Cyprus | N/A | Greece | 0.2 | Malta | N/A | Spain | 0.6 |
Czech Republic | 0.1 | Hungary | 1 | Netherlands | 2.7 | Sweden | 5.2 |
Denmark | 0.6 | Ireland | 0.7 | Poland | 0.2 | United Kingdom | 1.9 |
Electricity Generation by Source, GWhe | 2015 | 2020 | 2025 | 2030 | 2035 | 2040 | 2045 | 2050 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nuclear energy | 27,596 | 27,596 | 27,596 | 27,594 | 37,668 | 47,742 | 54,556 | 54,467 |
Solids | 41,095 | 41,990 | 40,672 | 38,739 | 28,716 | 14,514 | 6,972 | 17,948 |
Oil | 231 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Gas | 5,853 | 3,591 | 6,677 | 10,047 | 12,143 | 15,189 | 16,583 | 11,840 |
Biomass-waste | 2,214 | 1,097 | 2,781 | 3,669 | 4,533 | 6,602 | 8,251 | 7,608 |
Hydro | 2,421 | 2,541 | 2,471 | 2,561 | 2,716 | 2,941 | 3,453 | 3,877 |
Wind | 508 | 759 | 824 | 878 | 912 | 991 | 1,664 | 1,782 |
Solar | 2,149 | 2,214 | 2,254 | 2,276 | 2,352 | 2,395 | 2,422 | 2,967 |
Total | 82,069 | 79,788 | 83,276 | 85,763 | 89,039 | 90,374 | 93,902 | 100,489 |
EV | 100 | km |
---|---|---|
Inputs: | ||
Battery, Li-ion production | 0.2620 | kg |
Road | 0.0487 | my |
Passenger car production | 0.6121 | kg |
Maintenance | 0.0007 | p |
Electricity for EV charging | 19.9000 | kWh |
Outputs: | ||
Brake wear emissions | 0.0001 | kg |
Road wear emissions | 0.0012 | kg |
Tire wear emissions | 0.0068 | kg |
Indicator | Unit | Conventional Gasoline Cars | EVs in 2015 | EVs in 2050 |
---|---|---|---|---|
CF | kg CO2 eq/100 km | 34.23 | 21.53 | 13.42 |
WF | m3/100 km | 0.116 | 0.134 | 0.138 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Jursova, S.; Burchart-Korol, D.; Pustejovska, P. Carbon Footprint and Water Footprint of Electric Vehicles and Batteries Charging in View of Various Sources of Power Supply in the Czech Republic. Environments 2019, 6, 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments6030038
Jursova S, Burchart-Korol D, Pustejovska P. Carbon Footprint and Water Footprint of Electric Vehicles and Batteries Charging in View of Various Sources of Power Supply in the Czech Republic. Environments. 2019; 6(3):38. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments6030038
Chicago/Turabian StyleJursova, Simona, Dorota Burchart-Korol, and Pavlina Pustejovska. 2019. "Carbon Footprint and Water Footprint of Electric Vehicles and Batteries Charging in View of Various Sources of Power Supply in the Czech Republic" Environments 6, no. 3: 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments6030038
APA StyleJursova, S., Burchart-Korol, D., & Pustejovska, P. (2019). Carbon Footprint and Water Footprint of Electric Vehicles and Batteries Charging in View of Various Sources of Power Supply in the Czech Republic. Environments, 6(3), 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments6030038