FACULTY OF MECHANICAL AND INDUSTRIAL

ENGINEERING BAHIRDAR INSTITUTE OF

TECHNOLOGY

GROUP ASSIGNMENT
ELECYRIC AND HYBRID VEHICLE

Submitted by
FASIL GUDETA ID"BDU1401798"

SUBMITTED TO : Birhanu adisie

AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERING

BAHIRDAR UNIVERSITY, ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA

MAY 2023 G.C
Contents
ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................................3
Introduction...................................................................................................................................................5
Methodology.................................................................................................................................................9
Calculating vehicle stock turnover and UK EV adoption rates..................................................................9
GHG emissions from vehicle production.................................................................................................10
GHG emissions in the usage phase..........................................................................................................11
Overall GHG emissions...........................................................................................................................11
Embedded CO2 emissions from vehicle manufacture.............................................................................12
Results and Discussion................................................................................................................................15
Well-to-Wheel Emission Results of ICEVs.............................................................................................15
Simulation Emission Results...................................................................................................................15
Projections and impacts for EV adoption scenarios on on-road CO2 emissions......................................15
Conclusions.................................................................................................................................................18
References...................................................................................................................................................19
ABSTRACT
The decarbonization of the road transport sector is increasingly seen as a necessary component to
meet global and national targets as specified in the Paris Agreement. It may be achieved best by
shifting from Internal Combustion Engine cars to Electric Vehicles. However, the transition to a
low carbon mode of transport will not be instantaneous and any policy or technological change
implemented now will take years to have the desired effect. Within this paper we show how on-
road emission factors of EVs and models of embedded CO2 in the vehicle production may be
combined with statistics for vehicle uptake/replacement to forecast future transport emissions. We
demonstrate that EVs, when compared to an efficient ICE, provide few benefits in terms of CO2
mitigation until 2030. However, between 2030 and 2050, predicted CO2 savings under the
different EV uptake and decarbonization scenarios begin to diverge with larger CO2 savings seen
for the accelerated EV uptake. This work shows that simply focusing on on-road emissions is
insufficient to model the future CO2 impact of transport. Instead a more complete production
calculation must be combined with an EV uptake model. Using this extended model, our scenarios
show how the lack of difference between a Business as Usual and accelerated EV uptake scenario
can be explained by the time-lag in cause and effect between policy changes and the desired
change in the vehicle fleet. Our work reveals that current UK policy is unlikely to achieve the
desired reduction in transport-based CO2 by 2030. If embedded CO2 is included as part of the
transport emissions sector, then all possible UK EV scenarios will miss the reduction target for
2050 unless this is combined with intense decarbonization (80% of 1990 levels) of the UK
electricity grid. This result highlights that whilst EVs offer an important contribution to
decarbonization in the transport sector it will be necessary to look at other transport mitigation
strategies, such as modal shift to public transit, car sharing and demand management, to achieve
both near-term and long-term mitigation targets[1].

Continuous efforts are made to reduce the lifecycle contribution of the automotive sector in
carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions, the main greenhouse gas, focusing mainly on the
manufacturing and use phases Battery Electric Vehicles are widely excepted as the next
technology paradigm due to their significantly decreased emissions compared to conventional
gasoline or diesel Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles during their use. In the specific study, a
Well-to-Wheel framework has been proposed to compare the contribution of ICEVs and BEVs
into air pollution, including the entire process of the energy flow from the extraction of the energy
source up to the vehicle being driven. Moreover, owing to the direct link[2]
2

In order to reduce vehicle emitted greenhouse gases on a global scale, the scope of consideration
should be expanded to include the manufacturing, fuel extraction, refinement, power generation,
and end-of-life phases of a vehicle, in addition to the actual operational phase. In this paper, the
CO2 emissions of conventional gasoline and diesel internal combustion engine vehicles (ICV)
were compared with mainstream alternative powertrain technologies[3],

emissions from electric vehicles in the operational stage was performed. The vehicle’s electricity
consumption of 0.14–0.16 kWh/ km is accompanied by CO2 emissions of 100.94–115.36 g/km.
The calculated CO2 exceeds the EU limit value from 01/01/2020 (95 g/km) for average CO2
emissions from new passenger vehicles. The main message of the work is the statement that
increasing the efficiency of the electricity generation process in commercial thermal power plants
in Poland will translate into a reduction in the emission of electric cars consuming this energy for
propulsion. The research shows that the change in the efficiency of energy transformations in a
thermal power plant from 38% to 46% leads to a reduction in the emission of an electric vehicle
by over 17%. The emission of CO2 from a passenger car with a compression-ignition engine is
discussed. The considerations include the stage of the use of the vehicle and the stage of
production of diesel oil, which is consumed during the use of the vehicle[4].

The European Union (EU) has set a 37.5% GHG reduction target in 2030 for the mobility sector,
relative to 1990 levels. This requires increasing the share of zero-emission passenger vehicles,
mainly in the form of electric vehicles (EVs)[5].
 3

Introduction
The transport sector has been identified as a key barrier to dec- arborization based on the high
costs of substituting energy-dense liquid fossil,

emissions from the transport sector. The assertion that EVs can deliver high CO2 emissions
reductions requires better underpinning of detailed national or regional studies that are informed
both by empirical and conceptual detail. The UK, which consists of four countries: England,
Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland covering an area of 243,610 km2 and an estimated
population of about 62 million people, offers itself as an attractive case study due to its generally
progressive climate policies and insular location, which reduces dependencies on international and
transit road users. In 2008, the Climate Change Act 2008 was introduced in the UK with the stated
aim of reducing UK greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 80% of the 1990 levels by 2050. The
Committee of Climate Change estimated that transport is one of the largest CO2 emitters in the
UK, with emissions in 2016 amounting to 26% of the total GHG emissions. However, contrasting
with substantial reductions in other sectors, the transport sector has stagnated with the total
emitted CO2 remaining approximately equivalent to 1990 levels, without any apparent signs of
improvement [1].

The automotive industry is constantly making significant efforts to reduce the environmental
impact during the lifecycle of the vehicle, including raw material processing, production, use and
recovery [2]. As it regards the manufacturing stage, “greener” strategies are developed, both at
production and communication and an ongoing trend of digitization and process level [2].

the driving conditions during the vehicle’s type-approval, delivering economy figures that
underrepresent reality . Aiming at the urban air pollution reduction, the European Commission has
situated binding targets to meet the emission commitments of the Kyoto Protocol [2]. As the
automotive industry is investing on developing energy efficient solutions and innovative
technologies to correspond to these targets, the average emissions are falling each year, aiming the
limit of 95 gCO2/km for passenger cars to be achieved by 2020 (Regulation EC443/2009 of April
2009)[2]. Hence, it is expected that in the years to come the contribution of road transport in the
environmental pollution will be significantly limited.

As fossil fuels constitute the main source of the Greenhouse Gas[2] emission respecting the road
transport, continuous efforts are made to reduce their use. Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) are
considered as the energy efficient solution to the environmental problems related to the
conventional Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles (ICEVs), due to the zero tailpipe emission
production. However, the use of fossil fuels is inevitable, as fossil fuel is often used for the
generation of the required electricity to power the BEVs.

In response to the awareness of human induced climate change in the past decades, the
international policy agenda has been driven toward greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction. The
transport sector, especially land based passenger transport constitutes the fastest growing source
of all GHG emissions. It is recognized as a primary sector[3]. Despite the growing importance of
CO2 regulation in the passenger transport sector, the focal point of current regulations is limited
only to a vehicle’s operational phase, i.e., tank-to-wheel tailpipe emissions. We applied a reduced
LCA approach including manufacturing emissions (for vehicle and bat- tery) of PEVs (cf figure
6). The focus lies on the usage phase, with additional consideration of emission factors from
literature resulting from battery and vehicle production [6]. As the experience with PEV disposal
is still limited we decided not to consider vehicle disposal in our analysis.

Vehicular emission can be from running exhaust emissions, running loss evaporative emissions,
or non-exhaust emissions. These emission types have been described in more detail later in the
article. The emission type determines the type of gaseous and particulate matter (PM) suspended
into the atmosphere [7]. The particulate matter and gaseous suspensions in the atmosphere cause
various health hazards [7]. Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) released during running exhaust
emission can cause a wide range of health hazards including birth defects and negative effects on
kidney, lungs and nervous system[7].

Electric vehicles (EVs) have been advocated as game changers to tackle climate change and
greenhouse gas CO2 emissions. EVs do not emit tailpipe CO2, nitrogen oxides (NOx), CO, SO2,
etc. and the elimination of such gases is critical in the urban environment. EVs only need smaller
engines without the cooling unit, gear shift, clutch, etc. compared to internal combustion engine
vehicles (ICEVs). So, EVs produce minimal noise and require low maintenance. Some pros and
cons of EVs are summarized in Table 1. General information on lithium battery features, system
design, and safety, is described in Ref.[8]
The deployment of EVs is anticipated to limit global warming to below 1.5–2 ◦C, in agreement
with the Paris Agreement’s targets to abandon the current fuel-intensive energy system. With this
ambitious material-intensive plan, only EVs equipped with massive batteries are allowed to hit the
roads. Such batteries are fabricated from lithium and other Energies

expensive materials metals. The design of LiBs should address two important safety points: short
circuitry and potential battery explosion. Petrol-powered and diesel cars might face extinction as
General Motors and Audi of Germany aim to stop selling such cars by 2033–2035. The
production of diesel/petrol cars will cease in the UK after 2030 and other automotive
multinationals might follow this path. Multinationals are racing to secure the purchase of lithium,
a principal “white oil” component in rechargeable batteries.

Society’s current individual mobility behavior is creating a plethora of looming problems, such as
fossil carbon intensity and the concomitant consequences regarding fossil resource supply or the
emissions of pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and particulate
matter. While pollutant problems can partially be solved technically by catalytic converters and
filters, expectations run high that the greenhouse gas and resource problems can be addressed by
massively substituting internal combustion engine cars (ICEV) with battery powered electric cars
(BEV)[9].

The widely used term “electric car” covers many types of currently discussed and tested variations
of electrical pro- pulsion systems for passenger cars, such as battery car, fuel cell car, and serial
hybrid (range extender) car. Most of the major car manufacturers recently announced that battery
cars will soon become part of their product lines (1)[9].

The main finding of this study is that the impact of a Li-ion battery used in BEVs for transport
service is relatively small. In contrast, it is the operation phase that remains the dominant
contributor to the environmental burden caused by transport service as long as the electricity for
the BEV is not produced by renewable hydropower. This finding is in good accordance with other
studies showing that the impact of operation dominates in transport service (35, 36). In these
studies, infrastructure, maintenance, and service have minor shares of the environmental impact
imposed by transport services. We found the same pattern for the environmental burden of the
different components to transport service

Currently, the transport sector is responsible for about one quarter of the total greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions and about 33% of the final energy consumption in the EU-28 (SPB 2016)[10].
Due to the increasing GHG emissions and local air pollution, interest in electrification of mobility
is rapidly growing.

Because of their zero emissions at the point of use, battery electric vehicles are considered as an
environmentally friendly technology. They can significantly contribute to the reduction in local air
pollution and possibly also to reduction in GHG emissions in the transport sector. In addition, an
increase in energy supply security reducing the depend- ency from the imported fossil fuels could
result from a switch to electric vehicles[10]

Methodology
Calculating vehicle stock turnover and UK EV adoption rates
The UK Committee on Climate Change surface transport CO2 abatement scenario from the fifth
carbon budget [1] posits that EV sales should reach 60% of all new car sales by 2030, which
would re- quire a growth rate in annual purchases of 33%.

This, combined with the introduction of a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel passenger cars
and small vans in 2040 by the UK government in 2017 [1], has allowed the creation of a series of
pre- dictions on the expected EV adoption rate within the UK, which would be required to meet
this target. By extrapolating to the 2040 target from existing EV sales rates, which show an
increase of 2074 in 2011 up to 5300 in 2017 it is possible to predict EV sales up to 2040. This
prediction for EV car sales is shown in Fig. 1 along with a predict EV sales up to 2040. This
prediction for EV car sales is shown in Fig. 1 along with a “Business as Usual” case which
assumes that current trends in EV sales will dominate future rates [1].

To understand the impact of EV penetration, and the possible con- sequences of policies dealing
with EV purchases, it is necessary to understand how EV penetration will affect the passenger
vehicle population. The effective in-use CO2 footprint of a vehicle fleet will be determined by the
age of the fleet, the distribution of different vehicle fuel- types and the annual mileage for the
combination of these two variables.

The UK Road Traffic Forecasts 2015 [1] predict that the expected number of cars in the UK will
grow from 25m in 2010 to approximately 35m in 2040. Therefore, to determine the vehicle
population it is necessary to apply the scrappage rate to the vehicle population and then allow a
new vehicle purchase level which will match the predicted total car numbers. This may be
described as: We applied a reduced LCA approach including manufacturing emissions (for
vehicle and battery) of PEVs (cf figure 6). The focus lies on the usage phase, with

additional consideration of emission factors from literature resulting from battery and vehicle
production [6]. As the experience with PEV disposal is still limited we decided not to consider
vehicle disposal in our analysis. Our analysis focuses on the impact from GHG

emissions in the electricity sector on the LCA [6]. We investigate a future energy scenario for
different global markets (China, Europe, Japan, United States, and India) with high passenger car
sales and link them to two different PEV market diffusion models [6]. Because of the
decarbonization of electricity generation, PEVs have the potential to emit less GHG than ICEVs
with conventional fuels in all countries considered. Therefore, we assess the potential influence of
the combined consideration of electricity generation mix and PEV market diffusion in Europe,
China, Japan, United States, and India emphasizing the usage phase under consideration of battery
and vehicle production.

GHG emissions from vehicle production

In a first step, the manufacturing GHG emissions for vehicle and battery production were
calculated. All vehicles considered were assumed to be identical, with the exception of the
addition of the batteries for PEVs. The associated assumptions are explained in the fol- lowing
and are also shown in table 1 in the appendix. The average battery capacity for BEV counts 25
kWh in 2017 and increases to 35 kWh (2030)[6]. Similarly, for PHEVs, the average battery
capacity increases from12 kWh in 2017 to 20 kWh in 2030 [6].

The indirect battery emissions included decline from140 kgCO2 per kWh in 2017 to 75 kgCO2
per kWh in 2030 . The GHG emissions for vehicle pro- duction are assumed 35 gCO2/km in the
period from 2017 to 2030. From 2030 on, they decrease linearly to 0 gCO2/km in 2050. Hence,
only emissions from production of batteries and vehicles are covered. In addition, it is assumed
that the vehicles have a lifetime of 12 years or 150,000 km of vehicle kilometers travelled for all
countries until 2050 and that battery and vehicle production in 2050will be completely carbon-
free [6]. Due to the international production sites, the same emissions for production are assumed
in the international comparison.

GHG emissions in the usage phase

In the vehicle usage phase, a distinction is made between emissions from fuel consumption for
ICEVs and emissions from the supply of electricity for PEVs. Regarding the emissions from fuel
consumption, a well-to-wheel GHG emission factor of 3.183 kgCO2 per litre of gasoline
(including upstream emissions) and a fuel economyof0.07 l per kilometer (7 l/100 km or 33.6
MPG) are assumed [6].
Overall GHG emissions
Taking into account the emissions from the vehicle production and the vehicle usage phase as well
as the mileage of 150,000 km, the overall GHG emissions are obtained (cf figure 2).

10
the vehicle use phase are summed over a period of 12 years to take into account the change in
emisions from electricity generation. The annual GHG emissions of PEVs in stock are reduced
with every year of operation when the generation mix improves. This is fundamentally different
from ICEVs - at least when not considering biofuels. This effect might even become stronger
when disposal of PEVs is included in the analysis, because current disposal processes are still in
an initial phase.

Embedded CO2 emissions from vehicle manufacture

The full CO2 emissions associated with an EV will also include the CO2 produced during its manufacture
as well as those produced during the car’s lifetime. For the UK, the most comprehensive report on pro-
duction-related CO2 emissions from the manufacture of EVs and ICEs was published by Ricardo The
report found that production in the UK of a standard mid-sized ICE will result in emissions of 5.6 tCO2,
whilst production of an equivalent sized EV will result in CO2 emissions of 8.8 tCO2.

The exact amount of CO2 emissions from production of both ICEs and EVs is a matter of some dispute
with a wide range of possible fig- ures depending both on the assessment methodology used (e.g. “bottom
up” versus “top down”) and the assumptions made in the production stage

11

provides a value of 150–200 kgCO2/kWh. This leads to an excess of 4.2 tCO2 for a 24 kWh battery (the
battery size for the initial Nissan Leaf models which would correspond to an 80–100 km range) which,
assuming the same CO2 production emissions for the vehicle body and reduced production emissions for
the EV drive train, will lead to a value similar to that shown in the earlier work by Ricardo. Hence, to more
easily maintain compatibility with previous publications, the Ricardo production related CO2 emissions
will be used in this work. [1]

The production-related CO2 emissions are a product of the processes used to create the vehicle.
Approximately 50% of the total energy used in the production of vehicles coming from the electricity grid
[1]and as such this value will vary depending on the country of origin, and the expected year of
manufacture. A vehicle constructed in a country which extensively uses coal-fired power stations will be
more CO2 intensive than the same vehicle constructed in a country dominated by renewable energy
sources. For example, the CO2 emissions from production of a vehicle produced in Japan would be higher
than that same vehicle produced in the UK, due to the higher CO2 intensity in Japan.

Similarly, a vehicle constructed in 2040 will be less CO2 intensive

(assuming a decarbonization of the electricity production) than a vehicle constructed now. The UK has
already observed strong grid dec- arborization with a reduction in 2017 of approximately 50% over 2010
levels [1]This level of decarbonization is higher than that originally estimated by the committee on Climate
Change [12] but progress on decarbonization beyond 2030 is uncertain. Beyond 2030 the carbon intensity
projections split into two broad categories, with increased nuclear generation capability leading to a
decarbonization level of 80% On-road CO2 emissions from EVs and ICEs

If EVs are to be a possible solution for reducing CO2 emissions from the transport sector, then it must be
shown that EVs will deliver a net reduction of CO2 emissions if they replace internal combustion engine
(ICE) vehicles on a like for like basis.

In Switch EV, a large scale EV deployment and assessment research project within the UK [1], the
installation of loggers on 44 EVs allowed for the collection of real world data, which included driving be
haviour and vehicle recharging events. From the time of each re- charge event it was possible to assign a
gCO2/kWh value to the energy being stored in an EV battery. This value is derived from the power mix
used to generate the electricity at the time of charge. When on a journey, the energy used by the vehicle is
monitored so an average gCO2/km travelled could be assigned to a particular trip.

12

The method of data analysis grouped into three areas was used: technical data of motor ve- hicles, values
of CO2 emission factors from the production of electric emission in thermal power plants and data on the
state and structure of electric emission production in Poland. The sources of data are technical vehicle

documentation, sci- entific publications and statistical studies[4].

 13

Results and Discussion

In-Use Fuel and Electricity Consumption Results

The average in-use estimated fuel consumption and the average type-approval values published by the
manufacturer were compared for each vehicular category. For the models tested the in-use consumption
values were higher than the additional type-approval at the range of 0.14%-0.33% for the gasoline ICEVs,
0.28%-0.39% for the diesel ICEVs and 0.16%-0.38% for the BEVs. This emphasizes the importance of the
estimation of the in-use consumption values over the equivalent type-approval, in order a representative

CO2 emission calculation to be achieved and to avoid underestimated emission results[2].

Well-to-Wheel Emission Results of ICEVs

The CO2 emissions calculation of the ICE models tested was distinguished into the Well-to-Car and Car-
to-Wheel segments. Initially, the Well-to-Car emissions were computed considering the in-use and the
type-approval fuel consumption values. Then, the Car-to-Wheel in-use emissions were estimated using the
in-use consumption values, while the type- approval emission data were received directly from the
manufacturer. The in-use CO2 values were estimated significantly higher that the corresponding type-
approval values. Moreover, it was found that diesel vehicles emit less CO2 than gasoline vehicles on
average. Although the CO2 emission is less on diesel vehicles for the same amount of fuel combusted, the
fuel efficiency of gasoline engines is higher than the respective of diesel engines and, as a result, the
required fuel for the combustion is notably less[2].

Simulation Emission Results

Considering the drag coefficient applied, the total CO2 emissions were calculated for each
vehicular category for the gasoline and diesel ICEVs. A proportional correlation was found
between the drag coefficient variation and the computed emissions. The emission estimation of
BEVs was primarily conducted considering the electricity is produced using a sole power source.
For each individual power supply source, the calculated amount of the CO2 emitted increases
relatively to the raise of the drag coefficient values in all the vehicular categories tested. Then, a
country-level emission evaluation was conducted relatively to each country’s electricity
generation

Projections and impacts for EV adoption scenarios on on-road CO2 emissions

As a preliminary step we calculated the on-road CO2 emissions under multiple different scenarios
from 2014 to 2050. This is a fundamental first step as it both allows us to evaluate how the
different scenarios would serve to meet the transport climate reduction targets set out in the
Climate Change Act 2008[1] and also form the basis of a combined on-road and embedded
production CO2 emission value.

It was assumed that the current vehicle fleet would be steadily re- placed with new vehicles, of
which a certain proportion would be EVs. As the new vehicles are introduced, the CO2 emissions
of the entire fleet would reduce as the older, less efficient vehicles are replaced by either more
modern, lower-emitting ICE vehicles or by EVs. Previous research [1] on Norwegian transport
emissions has shown the effect of temporal lag on CO2 emissions from vehicle transition rates.

In addition to ICE improvements in efficiency, there will be im- provident in CO2 emissions
intensity of the power which is being used to recharge EVs. Finally, in addition to the turnover of
vehicles, there will be a steady increase in the number of vehicles on the road ac- cording to the
forecasts by the Department for Transport’s National Transport Model [1].

The EV adoption levels are either “Business as Usual” or the targeted EV goals of no new ICE
vehicles by 2040. The ICE vehicles exhibit a reduction in CO2 emissions to 60% or 80% of
current emissions levels. Similarly, the power grid decarbonization is assumed to improve to
either 50% or 80% over current rates with 80% being the expected decarbonization and 50% a
more conservative estimate. Each possibility for EV adoption rate[1], ICE efficiency improvement
and power dec- arborization is combined and shown in table 1

In the following section, we present our results calculated from sales and production data
published by the company and regional distribution data from external sources. It is important to
highlight that Tesla does not specify in its reports which production processes carbon emission
data refers to, but based on the disclosed information we can assume the relation to well-to-wheel
cycles [11]. Figure 1 shows the production data for both Model S/X and Model 3/Y on a quarterly
basis. Although the Model S/X is a previously launched product for Tesla, the graph indicates
how the Model 3 is outgrowing it dynamically. Data movements show a close correlation between
sales and production data, with the most intense growth trend in 2020 and 2021, despite minor ups
and downs. In 2020, Model 3 production figures almost doubled, with 87.3 k vehicles produced in
the first quarter and 163.7 k in the fourth quarter. In 2021, the upward trend was maintained, but
with less intensity, with 180.3 k vehicles produced in the first quarter and 292.7 k in the fourth
one.
Conclusions
The crucial aspect for the future penetration of EVs is the development of the battery per- formalness, as
well as the reduction in their costs. Although battery performances have been significantly improved,
further efforts are still necessary to increase their lifetime and the number of charge/discharge cycles as
well as the usable battery capacity over the whole life span of the battery.

With respect to the costs, remarkable reductions have been already achieved over the last decade, and for
the next years, further cost cuts are very likely, mainly, because of increasing demand for EVs and more
intensified competition between battery manufacture-However, it is still not clear whether in the future
different types of batteries will compete with each other or whether finally only one type will turn out to be
most favorable

Another important issue currently discussed is the availability of materials for electric vehicles production.
It could happen that due to the switch from gasoline and diesel cars to EVs we will change the dependency
from oil-producing countries to lithium producing countries, which are mainly concentrated in South
America. However, with the increasing demand for EVs we are convinced that new and cheaper
technological solutions will emerge in the future, mainly due to competition. Electric

Several other factors impact direct CO2 emissions of PHEV, too. System power is relevant, aggressiveness
of driving, but also factors not covered in the present analysis, for example, recharge- behavior. PHEV
supporting programs not taking recharging behavior into account might have a misleading function with
the PHEV being used as a subsidized conventional vehicle

This research used a WTW-LCA combined with weight restricted and unrestricted DEA to measure the
environmental efficiency for each of the 27 European countries. An efficiency performance grouping
scheme was then used to identify the grouped performance scores for each country. Finally, a model-based
variability assessment using a non- parametric test was undertaken, supported with a projection level
analysis. The projection level analysis can help the least performing countries[12]

References
[1] G. Hill, O. Heidrich, F. Creutzig, and P. Blythe, “The role of electric vehicles in near-term
mitigation pathways and achieving the UK’s carbon budget,” Appl. Energy, vol. 251, no. July 2018,
p. 113111, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.04.107.

[2] L. Athanasopoulou, H. Bikas, and P. Stavropoulos, “Comparative Well-to-Wheel Emissions

Assessment of Internal Combustion Engine and Battery Electric Vehicles,” Procedia CIRP, vol. 78,
pp. 25–30, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.procir.2018.08.169.

[3] R. Kawamoto et al., “Estimation of CO2 Emissions of internal combustion engine vehicle and
 battery electric vehicle using LCA,” Sustain., vol. 11, no. 9, 2019, doi: 10.3390/su11092690.

[4] H. Marczak and P. Droździel, “Analysis of Pollutants Emission into the Air at the Stage of an
Electric Vehicle Operation,” J. Ecol. Eng., vol. 22, no. 8, pp. 182–188, 2021, doi:
10.12911/22998993/140256.

[5] C. Tang, A. Tukker, B. Sprecher, and J. M. Mogollón, “Assessing the European Electric-Mobility
Transition: Emissions from Electric Vehicle Manufacturing and Use in Relation to the EU
Greenhouse Gas Emission Targets,” Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 44–52, 2023, doi:
10.1021/acs.est.2c06304.

[6] A. Martz, P. Plötz, and P. Jochem, “Global perspective on CO2emissions of electric vehicles,”
Environ. Res. Lett., vol. 16, no. 5, 2021, doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/abf8e1.

[7] R. Vidhi and P. Shrivastava, “A review of electric vehicle lifecycle emissions and policy
recommendations to increase EV penetration in India,” Energies, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1–15, 2018,
doi: 10.3390/en11030483.

[8] J. H. T. Luong, C. Tran, and D. Ton-That, “A Paradox over Electric Vehicles, Mining of Lithium
for Car Batteries,” Energies, vol. 15, no. 21, pp. 1–25, 2022, doi: 10.3390/en15217997.

[9] D. A. Notter et al., “Erratum: Contribution of li-ion batteries to the environmental impact of electric
vehicles (Environmental Science & Technology (2010) 44 (6550-6556)),” Environ. Sci. Technol.,
vol. 44, no. 19, p. 7744, 2010, doi: 10.1021/es1029156.

[10] A. Ajanovic and R. Haas, “Electric vehicles: solution or new problem?,” Environ. Dev. Sustain.,
vol. 20, no. September 2017, pp. 7–22, 2018, doi: 10.1007/s10668-018-0190-3.

[11] S. G. Vig, A. Suta, and Á. Tóth, “Corporate Reporting of CO2 Emission Disclosures in Electric
Vehicle Manufacturing: an Overview of Tesla Inc.,” Chem. Eng. Trans., vol. 94, no. April, pp. 391–
396, 2022, doi: 10.3303/CET2294065.

[12] P. Plötz, S. Á. Funke, and P. Jochem, “Empirical fuel consumption and CO2 emissions of plug-in
hybrid electric vehicles,” J. Ind. Ecol., vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 773–784, 2018, doi: 10.1111/jiec.12623.