IMPORTANTE Dynamic fleet based life cycle GHG of the introduction of EV in the Portuguese light duty fleet

Supplementary Material for:
Dynamic fleet-based life-cycle greenhouse gas assessment of the

introduction of electric vehicles in the Portuguese light-duty fleet
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment
Rita Garciaa, Jeremy Gregoryb, Fausto Freirea
a
ADAI-LAETA, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Coimbra, Polo II Campus, R.
Luís Reis Santos, 3030-788 Coimbra, Portugal
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1-276, 77
Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139
Email addresses: rita.garcia@dem.uc.pt (R. Garcia), jgregory@mit.edu (J. Gregory),

fausto.freire@dem.uc.pt (F. Freire)
This supplementary material contains 30 pages, including 21 figures and 7 tables.
Contents
S-1 Vehicle stock sub-model ...................................................................................................................... 2
S-1.1 Fleet composition .......................................................................................................................... 4
S-1.2 Vehicle density .............................................................................................................................. 4
S-1.3 Probability of surviving................................................................................................................ 5
S-2 Dynamic life-cycle sub-models ............................................................................................................ 6
S-2.1 Calculation of vehicle production impacts ................................................................................. 9
S-2.1.1 Vehicle and battery weight and material composition ..................................................... 10
S-2.2 Calculation of vehicle use impacts ............................................................................................. 13
S-2.2.1 Maintenance......................................................................................................................... 14
S-2.2.2 Fuel and electricity consumption ....................................................................................... 14
S-2.2.3 Vehicle distance traveled .................................................................................................... 16
S-2.2.4 Fuel production and electricity generation ....................................................................... 19
S-2.3 Calculation of vehicle end-of-life impacts ................................................................................. 20
S-3 Sensitivity analysis ............................................................................................................................. 21
1
S-1 Vehicle stock sub-model
Table S-1 Vehicle stock sub-model parameters and data sources. Dashed cells indicate parameters that are subject to sensitivity analysis. n.a.: not applicable; Y: yes; N: no; i:
vehicle technology (g: gasoline ICEV; d: diesel ICEV; e: BEV); k: vehicle age; t: calendar year.
Baseline value
Historical data source Projected data source Time (i)
Variable Parameters Units (t≤2010) (t>2010) dependence g d e
N(i,0,t) New vehicles
q(i,t) market share % ACAP (1999; 2003; 2005; Calculated based on Ya 33 67 0

2011) assumption
S(i,k,t) Scrapped vehicles
λ(t) failure steepness n.a. Moura (2009) Assumption Y See Fig. S-3
(t) maximum life expectancy years Moura (2009) Assumption Y See Fig. S-3
p(k,t) probability of surviving n.a. Calculated (intermediate Calculated (intermediate Y See Fig. S-3
parameter) parameter)
F(i,k,t) Vehicle stock

d(t)b vehicle density vehicles/1000 Calculated (intermediate Calculated (intermediate Y See Fig. S-2
inhabitants parameter) parameter)
θ vehicle density multiplier n.a. n.a. Assumption N 1
n(t) population inhabitants PORDATA (2011) INE (2009) Y See Fig.7 in INE
(2009)
a Constant from 2010 for baseline scenario.
b d(t) follows a logistic curve calibrated based on vehicle data from ACAP (2011) and demographic data from PORDATA (2011).
2
Vehicle stock sub-model
Vehicle density
multiplier [%] Failure steepness Maximum life expectancy
θ λ(t) (t)
Vehicle density
[vehicles/1000 inhabitants] Population
Market share [inhabitants] Probability of surviving
[%]
d(t)=[+ ] θ n(t)
p(k,t)=exp
q(i,t) Label
Input
Vehicle stock
New vehicles Scrapped vehicles
[number of vehicles] Parameter subject to
[number of vehicles] [number of vehicles]
sensitivity analysis
F(t)=d(t) n(t)
N(i,t)=[F(t)-F(t-1)+S(t)] q(i,t) S(i,k,t)=F(i,k-1,t-1) [1-p(k,t)]
F(i,k,t) = N(i,t) if k=0; F(i,k,t-1)-S(i,k,t) otherwise Intermediate
parameter
Output
Fig. S-1 Vehicle stock sub-model description (i: vehicle technology; k: vehicle age; t: calendar year). All parameters are defined in Table S-1. The vehicle density is described
by a logistic curve, which was calibrated using vehicle and demographic data for Portugal for the period between 1974 and 2010 (r2=0.998) (see Fig. S-2); the probability of
surviving is described by a modified Weibull distribution, calibrated for Portugal conditions based on Moura (2009) (see Fig. S-3).
3
S-1.1 Fleet composition
Table S-2 Portuguese light-duty vehicle fleet composition in 1995 (Ceuster et al. 2007), used to initiate
the vehicle stock simulation.
Vehicle stock F(i,k,1995)

Vehicle Vehicle type (i)
age (k) Gasoline ICEV (g) Diesel ICEV (d)
0 188355 30208
1 209387 38217
2 219271 28274
3 273539 27491
4 139329 20316
5 181312 17575
6 176471 8406
7 160020 8161
8 143560 5123
9 127237 5730
10 111214 5415
11 95732 8621
12 81050 7218
13 67415 5943
14 55034 4334
15 44056 3525
16 34557 2433
17 26543 956
18 19955 522
19 14678 331
20 10562 118
S-1.2 Vehicle density
600
[vehicles/1000 inhabitants]
500
Vehicle density, d(t)
400
300
200
100
0
1998
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
2030
Calendar year, t
Baseline Historic data upper bound lower bound
Fig. S-2 Light-duty vehicle density in Portugal: historic data, logistic curve calibrated for Portugal, and
upper and lower bounds for sensitivity analysis.
4
S-1.3 Probability of surviving
1
Probability of surviving, p(k,t)
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
vehicle age, k [years]

t=1995 (λ=11; m=31) 
t=2000 (λ=13; m=35)

t=2005 (λ=11; m=34) 
t>2010 (λ=11; m=35)
lower bound upper bound
Fig. S-3 Probability of a light-duty vehicle surviving in the Portuguese fleet for different calendar years
(based on Moura 2009), and lower and upper bounds for sensitivity analysis. As the vehicle age increases,
its probability of surviving in the fleet decreases. The curves also indicate a later retirement of vehicles as
time passes.
5
S-2 Dynamic life-cycle sub-models
Table S-3 Vehicle life-cycle sub-model parameters and data sources. Dashed cells indicate parameters that are subject to sensitivity analysis. n.a.: not applicable; Y: yes; N:
no; i: vehicle technology (g: gasoline ICEV; d: diesel ICEV; e: BEV); k: vehicle age; t: calendar year; a: material; m: maintenance operation.
Historical data source Projected data source Time Baseline value (i)
Ip(i,0,t) Vehicle production impacts
Iav Vehicle assembly impacts
ev vehicle assembly emission kg CO2 Keoleian et al. (2012) Keoleian et al. (2012) N 938
factor eq/vehicle
Iv(i,0,t) Vehicle manufacturing impacts
wv(i,0,t) vehicle curb weight kg/vehicle European Commission Calculated (intermediate Y See Fig. S-5
(2012) parameter)
ν vehicle curb weight % n.a. Bandivadekar et al. (2008) N 0
reduction rate
rv(i,0,t,a)a share of material in vehicle % Cheah (2010) Cheah (2010) Y See Fig. 6-2 (a) and Fig. 6-3 in Cheah
(2010)
em(t,a)b material production kg CO2 eq/kg Keoleian et al. (2012); Keoleian et al. (2012); Y See data sources
emission factor material Cheah (2010) Cheah (2010)
Ib(i,0,t) Battery manufacturing impacts
wb(i,0,t)c battery weight kg Faria et al. (2014) USABC (2014) Y n.a. n.a. See Table S-4
rb(i,0,t,a) share of material in battery % Dunn et al. (2012) Dunn et al. (2012) N n.a. n.a. See Table 2 in Dunn
et al. (2012)
ω battery weight reduction % n.a. Assumption N n.a. n.a. 0
rate
6
Iab Battery assembly impacts
eb battery assembly emission kg CO2 Dunn et al. (2012) Dunn et al. (2012) N n.a. n.a. 0.457
factor eq/battery
Iu(i,k,t) Vehicle use impacts
Ie(i,k,t) Electricity generation impacts
ee(t) electricity generation kg CO2 Garcia et al. (2014) Calculated based on Y See Fig. S-11
emission factor eq/kWh assumption
ce(i,k,t) electricity consumption kWh/km Faria et al. (2014) Calculated (intermediate Y n.a. n.a. See Fig. S-8
parameter)
ε(i) electricity consumption % n.a. Assumption N n.a. n.a. 0
reduction rate
If(i,k,t) Fuel production impacts
ef(i) fuel production emission kg CO2 eq/kg Jungbluth (2007) Jungbluth (2007) N 0.729 0.523 n.a.
factor fuel
ι fuel production emission % n.a. Assumption N 0 0 n.a.
factor rate of change
cf(i,k,t)d fuel consumption kg/km European Commission Calculated (intermediate Y See Fig. S-7 n.a.
(2012) parameter)
φ(i) fuel consumption reduction % n.a. Assumption N 0 0 n.a.
rate
j(i,k,t) vehicle distance travelled km Calculated (intermediate Calculated (intermediate Y
parameter) parameter)
y(i,0,t)e first-year vehicle distance km t=2005: Azevedo (2007); Calculated (intermediate Y See Table S-6
travelled other years calculated parameter)
ρ(i,t) first-year vehicle distance % Calculated based on Calculated based on Y See Table S-7
travelled growth rate assumption assumption
x(i,k) indexed-mileage n.a. Calculated based on data Same as t≤2010 Y See Fig. S-9
from Azevedo (2007)
7
ζ(i) n.d.f n.a. Calculated based on data Same as t≤2010 N -0.313 -0.32 -0.313
from Azevedo (2007)
σ(i) n.d.g n.a. Calculated based on data Same as t≤2010 N 1.4173 1.3623 1.4173
from Azevedo (2007)
Io(i,k,t) Operation impacts
eo(i) operation emission factor kg CO2 eq/kg Moura (2009) Moura (2009) N 3.1856 3.1375 n.a.
fuel
Im(i,k,t) Maintenance impacts
em(i,m) maintenance operation kg CO2 See Table S-5

emission factor eq/operation
m(i,k,t,m) maintenance schedule n.a. See Table S-5
Il(i,k,t) End-of-life impacts
Ilv Vehicle end-of-life impacts
elv vehicle end-of-life emission kg CO2 Keoleian et al. (2012) Keoleian et al. (2012) N 278
factor eq/vehicle
Ilb(i,k,t) Battery end-of-life impacts
elb battery end-of-life emission kg CO2 eq/kg Faria et al. (2014) Faria et al. (2014) N n.a. n.a. 390
factor battery
a The main changes are related to the substitution of cast iron and conventional steel by lightweight materials such as high-strength steel, aluminum, and plastics.
b Emission factors for t=2000 from Keoleian et al. (2012), evolution according to Cheah (2010).
c Assuming Li-ion battery pack energy density increases from 80 Wh/kg today (24 kWh capacity) to 235 Wh/kg in 2020 (45 kWh capacity), and constant thereafter, according to USABC (2014).
d Since fuel consumption in real-world conditions is considerably higher than measured in test-cycles, mainly due to the use of energy consuming devices such as air conditioners, we assumed a
17% increase in real-world consumption factors compared with test-cycle figures, according to Nemry et al. (2008). Density of gasoline 0.748 kg/L; Density of diesel: 0.837 kg/L.
e First yr mileage by powertrain (gasoline and diesel) for 2005 (Azevedo, 2007); since BEVs are about 70% more energy efficient than gasoline ICEVs, we assumed a higher VKT in order to
account for the expected rebound effect, in line with Silva (2011).
f Slope of indexed mileage curve.
g Constant parameter of indexed mileage curve.
8
S-2.1 Calculation of vehicle production impacts
Vehicle production impacts

[kg CO2 eq/vehicle]
Ip(i,0,t)=Iv(i,0,t)+Iav(i,0,t)+Ib(i,0,t)+ Iab(i,0,t)
Vehicle assembly impacts Vehicle manufacturing impacts Battery manufacturing impacts Battery assembly impacts
[kg CO2 eq/vehicle] [kg CO2 eq/vehicle] [kg CO2 eq/vehicle] [kg CO2 eq/battery]
Iav=ev Iv(i,0,t)= Ib(i,0,t)= Iab=eb
Vehicle assembly ef Vehicle curb weight [kg/vehicle] Share of material in Material production ef Battery weight Share of material in Battery assembly ef
[kg CO2 eq/vehicle] vehicle [%] [kg CO2 eq/kg material] [kg/vehicle] battery [%] [kg CO2 eq/battery]
wv(i,0,t);
ev wv(i,0,t>2010)=wv(i,1,t) wv(i,0,2010) ν rv(i,0,t,a) em(t,a) wb(i,0,t)=wb(i,1,t) wb(i,0,2010) ω rb(i,0,t,a) eb
Vehicle curb weight Battery curb weight Label

reduction rate [%] reduction rate [%]
Input
ν ω
Parameter subject to
Intermediate
parameter
Output
Fig. S-4 Calculation of vehicle production impacts (i: vehicle technology; k: vehicle age; t: calendar year; a: material). All parameters are defined in Table S-3.
9
S-2.1.1 Vehicle and battery weight and material composition
Fig. S-5 shows the evolution of the new light-duty vehicle curb weight in the Portuguese fleet for the three
vehicle types. Future curb weight was assumed to decrease for ICEVs, since it is expected that weight
reduction measures will take place as a means of reducing fuel consumption of new vehicles. We assumed
a decrease of 16% in vehicle curb weight in 2010-2030 (0.8% per year) for ICEV vehicle technologies, to
reflect the lightweighting of vehicles based on Bandivadekar et al. (2008). The upper bound for sensitivity
analysis was set based on Cheah (2010), which showed that combining the use of lightweight materials and
vehicle redesign for minimal weight can reduce vehicle weight up to 35%.
Electric vehicle batteries were also assumed to become lighter, as it is expected that the energy density of
the battery packs will increase with model year. We assumed that Li-ion battery pack energy density
increases from 80 Wh/kg today (24 kWh capacity) to 235 Wh/kg in 2020 (45 kWh capacity), according to
the USA Battery Consortium (USABC 2014), and constant thereafter.
Material composition of ICEVs was assumed to change over time according to Cheah (2010). The main
changes are related to the substitution of cast iron and conventional steel by lightweight materials such as
high-strength steel (HSS), aluminum, and plastics. Material composition of BEVs and batteries was
assumed constant. Iron, steel, aluminum, and magnesium material production (i.e. extraction and
processing) was assumed to become more energy-efficient and less GHG intensive over time (evolution
according to Cheah 2010). Regarding other materials, we assumed energy use and GHG emissions constant
over time. Energy intensity and GHG emissions from 1995-1999 were assumed equal to 2000.
10
1 600
Curb weight, wv(g,0,t) [kg] 1 400

1 200
Gasoline ICEV (historic)
1 000
Gasoline ICEV (Ii Bd & C
800 scenarios)
600 Gasoline ICEV (higher bound &
BAU scenario)
400 Gasoline ICEV (lower bound)
200
0
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Calendar year, t
1 600
Curb weight, wv(d,0,t) [kg]
1 400
1 200 Diesel ICEV (historic)
1 000
Diesel ICEV (Ii Bd & C scenarios)
800
Diesel ICEV (higher bound & BAU
600
scenario)
400 Diesel ICEV (lower bound)
200
0
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Calendar year, t
1 600
Curb weight, wv(e,0,t) [kg]
1 400
BEV (historic)
1 200
BEV (Ii Bd & C scenarios)
1 000
BEV (higher bound & BAU
800
scenario)
600 BEV (lower bound)
400
200
0
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030
Calendar year, t
Fig. S-5 New light-duty vehicle curb weight evolution in the Portuguese fleet: historic data, scenarios
and, lower and upper bound for sensitivity analysis.
11
Table S-4 BEV battery weight for different calendar years. We assumed that Li-ion battery pack energy
density increases from 80 Wh/kg today (24 kWh capacity) to 235 Wh/kg in 2020 (45 kWh capacity),
according to the USA Battery Consortium (USABC 2014), and constant thereafter.
Calendar year, t Battery weight, wb(e,0,t) [kg]

2010-2015 300
2016 254
2017 228
2018 212
2019 200
2020-2030 191
12
S-2.2 Calculation of vehicle use impacts
Vehicle use impacts
[kg CO2 eq/vehicle]
Iu(i,k,t)=Ie(i,k,t)+If(i,k,t)+Io(i,k,t)+ Im(i,k,t)
Electricity generation impacts Fuel production impacts Operation impacts Maintenance impacts
[kg CO2 eq/vehicle] [kg CO2 eq/vehicle] [kg CO2 eq/vehicle] [kg CO2 eq/vehicle]
Ie(i,k,t)=j(i,k,t) ce(i,k,t) ee(t) If(i,k,t)=j(i,k,t) cf(i,k,t) ef(i) Io(i,k,t)=j(i,k,t) cf(i,k,t) eo(i) Im(I,k,t)=m(i,k,t,m) em(i,m)
Electricity generation ef Electricity consumption [kWh/km] Vehicle distance travelled Maintenance schedule Maintenance operation ef
[kg CO2 eq/kWh] [km] [kg CO2 eq/operation]
ce(i,k,t); m(i,k,t,m)=1 if = t(i,m);
ee(t) ce(i,k,t>2010)=ce(i,k,t-1) - ce(i,0,2010) ε(i)) j(i,k,t)=y(i,0,t-k) x(i,k) 0 otherwise em(i,m)
Electricity consumption
First-year vehicle distance Indexed-mileage
reduction rate [%]
travelled [km]
ε(i)
y(i,0,t)=y(i,0,2005) ρ(i,t) x(i,k)=ζ(i,t)ln(k)+σ(i)
First-year vehicle distance ζ(i) σ(i)

travelled multiplier
ρ(i,t)
Label
Fuel production ef [kg CO2 eq/kg fuel] Fuel consumption [kg fuel/km] Operation ef Input
[kg CO2 eq/kg fuel]
ef(i); cf(i,k,t);
ef(i,k,t>2010)=ef(i,k,t-1) + ef(i,0,2010) ι cf(i,k,t>2010)=cf(i,k,t-1) - cf(i,0,2010) φ(i) eo(i) Parameter subject to
Intermediate
Fuel consumption rate Fuel consumption
parameter
of change [%] reduction rate [%]
ι φ(i) Output
Fig. S-6 Calculation of vehicle use impacts (i: vehicle technology; k: vehicle age; t: calendar year; m: maintenance operation). All parameters are defined in Table S-3.
13
S-2.2.1 Maintenance
Table S-5 Maintenance operation schedule (g: gasoline ICEV; d: diesel ICEV; e: BEV; y: model year).
Maintenance operation, Vehicle Cumulative vehicle Emission factor, Source

m type, i distance traveled, em(i,m) [kg CO2
t(i,m) [km] eq/operation]
Battery replacement e 100,000 0.85a Faria et al. (2014);
Keoleian et al. (2012)
Tire replacement g, d, e 80,000 227.05b Keoleian et al. (2012)
Engine oil substitution g, d 10,000 (y<2000); 12.58c Keoleian et al. (2012)
30,000 (y2000)
a Emission factor per kg of battery. Includes impacts from battery disposal and production of new battery.
b Includes impacts from production and disposal of four tires.
c Includes impacts from engine oil production and disposal.
S-2.2.2 Fuel and electricity consumption
Vehicle fuel consumption varies with model year. Fig. S-7 shows the average fuel consumption of new
internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) from 1995 to 2030. Historic fuel consumption of new light-
duty gasoline ICEVs and diesel ICEVs was obtained from European Commission, based on the New
European Driving Cycle (NEDC) figures. Since fuel consumption in real-world conditions is considerably
higher than measured in test-cycles, mainly due to the use of energy consuming devices such as air
conditioners, we assumed a 17% increase in real-world consumption factors compared with test-cycle
figures, according to Nemry et al. (2008).
For those scenarios where we considered improvements on new ICEVs (ICEV improves and Combined,
see Table 1 in the original manuscript), we set future fuel consumption figures so that the EU targets for
2020 (4.1 L/100 km for gasoline ICEVs and 3.6 L/100 km for diesel ICEVs) would be met (25% decrease
in 2010-2020), following a linear trend up to 2030 (resulting in a 50% decrease in 2010-2030). For the
sensitivity analysis, we defined the lower bound based on the fuel consumption of diesel concept cars (1
L/100 km), assuming that that figure is reached in 2030 (resulting in an 80% decrease in 2010-2030; we
assumed the same relative reduction for gasoline ICEVs).
14
9
Fuel consumption, cf(d,0,t) 8
EU targets
7
2015 EU target (+17%)
6 Diesel ICEV (historic)
[L/100 km]
5 2020 EU target (+17%)

Diesel ICEV (Ii & C scenarios)
4
3 Diesel ICEV (upper bound, BAU
2 & Bd scenarios)
Diesel ICEV (lower bound)
1
0
2005
1995
2000
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Calendar year, t
9
8
Fuel consumption, Cf(g,0,t)
2015 EU target (+17%) EU targets

7
6 Gasoline ICEV (historic)
[L/100 km]
2020 EU target (+17%)

5
Gasoline ICEV (Ii & C scenarios)
4
3 Gasoline ICEV (upper bound,
BAU & Bd scenarios)
2
Gasoline ICEV (lower bound)
1
0
2015
1995
2000
2005
2010
2020
2025
2030
Calendar year, t
Fig. S-7 Fuel consumption of new light-duty ICEVs in Portugal: historic data, scenarios and, lower and
upper bound for sensitivity analysis.
200
180
Electricity consumption, Ce(e,0,t)
160
140 BEV (historic)
120
BEV (all scenarios)
[Wh/km]
100
BEV (upper bound)
80
60 BEV (upper bound)
40
20
0
2005
1995
2000
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Calendar year, t
Fig. S-8 Electricity consumption of new BEVs in Portugal: historic data, scenarios and, lower and upper
bound for sensitivity analysis.
15
S-2.2.3 Vehicle distance traveled
The distance travelled by a vehicle (vehicle kilometers traveled, VKT) varies depending on a number of
factors, such as vehicle age, technology, and utilization purpose. VKT may decrease with vehicle age due
to deterioration, reduced reliability, and shifting of primary to secondary car usage (Kim 2003; Moura
2009). We based our annual VKT estimations on vehicle inspection data for Portugal for 2005 from
Azevedo (2007). A mileage reduction index curve was obtained for both gasoline and diesel ICEVs through
adjustment of a logarithmic function to the vehicle inspection data set (r2=0.9797 for gasoline ICEV;
r2=0.9893 for diesel ICEV) (Fig S-5). For BEVs we assumed the same VKT profile as gasoline ICEVs.
However, since BEVs are about 70% more energy efficient than gasoline ICEVs, we assumed a higher
VKT in order to account for the expected rebound effect, in line with Silva (2011). The same mileage
reduction curve was used for all model years, but different first-year VKT values were assumed, as
explained in the next paragraph. We also performed a sensitivity analysis to determine the effect of the
VKT profile in the results considering higher or lower yearly reduction rates according to the curves
presented in Fig. S-9. Fig. S-10 shows the VKT profile for model year 2010 for different technologies.
Yearly VKT of diesel ICEVs is higher than gasoline ICEVs. A model year 2010 gasoline ICEV is driven
around 140,000 km over a 15-year lifetime, a BEV around 170,000 km, and a diesel ICEV around 250,000
km.
First-year VKT for model year 2005 was derived from data from Azevedo (2007) (see Table S-6). For
gasoline ICEV, first-year VKT figures for model years 1995-2010 were adjusted so that total fleet gasoline
consumption approximates gasoline sales in Portugal reported by DGEG (2014) (see Fig. S-11; it was
assumed that gasoline sales in Portugal is allocated to light-duty vehicles only). A reduction of 1%/year
was assumed in 1995-2010, with reference to the 2005 data. We assumed that first-year VKT of gasoline
ICEVs continues to decrease until 2020, but at a slower rate (0.5%/year), and constant thereafter. According
to ADEME (2012), the average light-duty vehicle VKT in Portugal has stabilized since 2000. Our baseline
model assumes that this trend will continue in the future. This means that, since diesel ICEVs are driven
more than gasoline ICEVs and their share in the fleet is expected to increase, their VKT should decrease.
First-year VKT figures for diesel ICEVs were assumed to decrease 0.5%/year from 2000 to 2030 so that
estimated average LDV VKT remains approximately unaltered. First-year VKT figures for BEVs were
assumed constant in 2010-2020 and to increase 0.5%/year in 2020-2030, as battery technology improves.
Since BEV VKT is lower than diesel ICEV VKT, the fleet VKT decreases as BEV penetration rate
16
increases. In order to understand the effect of BEV VKT in the results, we performed a sensitivity analysis
to the first-year VKT of BEVs (in 2010). The upper bound was set so that total fleet VKT is similar to that
of the all ICEVs scenarios. The lower bound mirrors that value (relative to the baseline value).
1.2
1.0
x(i,k)=-0.4ln(k)+1.42
Indexed mileage, x(i,k)
0.8
x(g,k)=-0.313ln(k)+1.4173
0.6
x(d,k)=-0.32ln(k)+1.3623
0.4
x(i,k)=-0.2ln(k)+1.27
0.2
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Vehicle age, k [years]
Gasoline ICEV/BEV Diesel ICEV Moura (2009)

Higher reduction rate Lower reduction rate
Fig. S-9 Indexed mileage for gasoline ICEVs, BEVs and diesel ICEVs estimated based on Azevedo
(2007); higher and lower bounds for the sensitivity analysis; and comparison with the indexed curve used
in Moura (2009).
25,000
Distance traveled, j(i,k,2010+k)
20,000
15,000
[km]
10,000
5,000
0
0 5 10 15 20
Vehicle age, k [years]
Gasoline ICEV (y=2010) Diesel ICEV (y=2010) BEV (y=2010)
Fig. S-10 Annual vehicle distance traveled by powertrain for model year 2010.
17
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
[Ton]
1,000,000
500,000
0
1999
2009
2010
1995
1996
1997
1998
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Calendar year, t
Gasoline sales (DGEG) Gasoline consumption (estimated)
Fig. S-11 Gasoline sales in Portugal reported by DGEG (2014) and gasoline consumption calculated by
the model.
Table S-6 First-year VKT for light-duty vehicles in Portugal. Data for model years 2005 was based on
Azevedo (2007); for the remaining years, figures were estimated based on the yearly growth rates shown
in Table S-7. Values in brackets are the lower and upper bound for sensitivity analysis.
y(i,0,t)
Calendar Vehicle type (i)
year (t) Gasoline Diesel ICEV
BEV (e)
ICEV (g) (d)
2005 12,105 24,133 --
2010 11,512 22,950 13,929 (10,500-17,500)
2015 11,227 21,825 13,929 (10,500-17,500)
2020 10,949 20,756 13,929 (10,500-17,500)
2025 10,949 20,242 14,281 (10,765-17,942)
2030 10,949 19,741 14,642 (11,037-18,395)
Table S-7 First-year VKT yearly growth rate for light-duty vehicles in Portugal.
ρ(i,t)
Calendar Vehicle type (i)
year (t)
Gasoline Diesel
BEV (e)
ICEV (g) ICEV (d)
1995-2010 -1.0% -1.0% --
2010-2020 -0.5% -1.0% 0.0%
2020-2030 0.0% -0.5% 0.5%
18
S-2.2.4 Fuel production and electricity generation
GHG emissions from gasoline and diesel production were obtained from Jungbluth (2007). According to
ICCT (2010), GHG emissions from crude oil (extraction-to-refinery output) in Europe (and derivatives)
are expected to increase by 7% up to 2020, due to increasing need to exploit deeper reservoirs, deeper
waters, and emission-intensive sources such as tar sands. This value was used as upper bound for the fuel
production emission factor rate of change in the sensitivity analysis (2010-2020 reduction, constant
thereafter). For the lower bound, we assumed a 6% reduction based on the European Commission
reduction target for fuel upstream GHG emissions by 2020 (European Parliament and Council of the
European Union 2009).
Historic GHG emissions from electricity generation and supply (ee) in Portugal were obtained from
Garcia et al. (2014). The average of the emission factors for the last 10 years (2003-2012) was assumed
up to 2030 (constant value), in order to account for the variability between years (baseline). For
sensitivity analysis, the upper bound (1.1 kg CO2 eq/kWh) was set to simulate a coal-based mix and the
lower bound a hydro-based mix (0.02 kg CO2 eq/kWh), based on the technologies available in Portugal
(Garcia et al. 2014).
1.2
Electricity generation ef, ee(t)
1.0
[kg CO2 eq/kWh]
0.8
Historic (Garcia et al., 2014)
0.6 Baseline
lower bound
0.4 upper bound
0.2
0.0
2003
2009
2015
2021
2027
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2022
2023
2024
2025
2026
2028
2029
2030
Calendar year, t
Fig. S-12 Electricity generation emission factors for Portugal: historic data (2003-2012), baseline value
(average of 2003-2012), and lower (hydro) and upper (coal) bounds for sensitivity analysis.
19
S-2.3 Calculation of vehicle end-of-life impacts
End-of-life impacts
[kg CO2 eq/vehicle]
Il(i,k,t)=Ilv+ Ilb(i,k,t)
Vehicle end-of-life impacts Battery end-of-life impacts

[kg CO2 eq/vehicle] [kg CO2 eq/vehicle]
Ilv Ilb(i,k,t)= elb
Label
Vehicle end-of-life ef Battery curb weight Battery end-of-life ef
[kg CO2 eq/vehicle] [kg/vehicle] [kg CO2 eq/kg battery] Input
elv wb(i,0,t-k) elb Parameter subject to

Intermediate
parameter
Output
Fig. S-13 Calculation of vehicle end-of-life impacts (i: vehicle technology; k: vehicle age; t: calendar year). All parameters are defined in Table S-3.
20
S-3 Sensitivity analysis
BAU scenario 2015 GHG emissions, Mton CO2 eq

6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Fuel consumption reduction rate (gasoline ICEV) -1%
Fuel consumption reduction rate (diesel ICEV) -3%
Electricity consumption reduction rate (BEV)
Electricity generation emission factor
Vehicle curb weight reduction rate -1%
Indexed mileage (gasoline ICEV) -10% 6%
Indexed mileage (diesel ICEV) -12% 6%
Indexed mileage (BEV)
Vehicle density multiplier -13% 11%
Maximum life expectancy -13% 12%
First-year vehicle distance travelled
Fuel production emission factor -1% 1%
Upper bound Lower bound

ICEV improve scenario 2015 GHG emissions, Mton CO2 eq
6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Fuel consumption reduction rate (gasoline ICEV)
Fuel consumption reduction rate (diesel ICEV) -1% 2%

BEV dominate scenario 2015 GHG emissions, Mton CO2 eq
6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000

Combined scenario 2015 GHG emissions, Mton CO2 eq
6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Fuel consumption reduction rate (BEV)
Fig. S-14 Sensitivity analysis results for total fleet LC GHG emissions in 2015.
21
6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000

6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Fuel consumption reduction rate (gasoline ICEV) -1% 2%
Vehicle curb weight reduction rate -2% 1%

6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Electricity generation emission factor -2% 2%

6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Fuel consumption reduction rate (BEV)
Fig. S-15 Sensitivity analysis results for total fleet LC GHG emissions in 2020. Blue bars indicate that the
ranking of scenarios changes when the respective parameter is at its lower or upper bound.
22
6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000

6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Maximum life expectancy 4%

6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Electricity consumption reduction rate (BEV) -2% 2%
Indexed mileage (BEV) -1%
First-year vehicle distance travelled -3% 4%

6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Fuel consumption reduction rate (BEV) -2% 2%
Indexed mileage (BEV) -1%
23
6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000

6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000

6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Indexed mileage (BEV) -5% 2%

6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000
Fuel consumption reduction rate (BEV) -5% 6%
24
BAU scenario 2015
GHG emissions, g CO2 eq/km
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Indexed mileage (gasoline ICEV)
Vehicle density multiplier
Maximum life expectancy -4%

ICEV improve scenario 2015 GHG emissions, g CO2 eq/km
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Vehicle curb weight reduction rate
Indexed mileage (gasoline ICEV) -1%

BEV dominate scenario 2015 GHG emissions, g CO2 eq/km
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Combined scenario 2015 GHG emissions, g CO2 eq/km
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Fig. S-18 Sensitivity analysis results for LC GHG emissions per km in 2015.
25
BAU scenario 2020 GHG emissions, g CO2 eq/km
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Vehicle density multiplier 1%

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Indexed mileage (diesel ICEV) 1%

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Fig. S-19 Sensitivity analysis results for LC GHG emissions per km in 2020. Blue bars indicate that the
26
BAU scenario 2025
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

Vehicle density multiplier 1%

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240


100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Indexed mileage (diesel ICEV)
Indexed mileage (BEV) 1%

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Indexed mileage (diesel ICEV)
First-year vehicle distance travelled -2%
27
BAU scenario 2030
100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240


100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240

100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240
Indexed mileage (diesel ICEV) -1%
28
References
ACAP (2011) Estatísticas do Sector Automóvel, Edição de 2010. Lisboa, Portugal
ADEME (2012) Energy Efficiency Trends in the Transport sector in the EU: Lessons from the
ODYSSEE MURE project. Grenoble, France
Azevedo CL (2007) Métodos de Estimativa de Volumes Anuais de Tráfego Rodoviário – Um Modelo

para Portugal. MSc thesis, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisboa
Bandivadekar A, Bodek K, Cheah L, et al (2008) On the Road in 2035. Massachusetts Institute of

Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Ceuster GD, Herbruggen B V., Ivanova O, et al (2007) TREMOVE – Service contract for the further
development and application of the transport and environmental TREMOVE model Lot 1
(Improvement of the data set and model structure). Brussels, Belgium
Cheah L (2010) Cars on a Diet : The Material and Energy Impacts of Passenger Vehicle Weight
Reduction in the U.S. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
DGEG (2014) Estatísticas e Preços, Petróleo e Derivados, Vendas de Combustíveis Mensais (1995-2014).
http://www.dgeg.pt/. Accessed 20 Apr 2002
Dunn JB, Gaines L, Barnes M, et al (2012) Material and Energy Flows in the Materials Production,
Assembly, and End-of-Life Stages of the Automotive Lithium-Ion Battery Life Cycle. Argonne
National Laboratory, Argonne, IL
European Commission (2012) Reducing CO2 emissions from passenger cars. In: Monit. CO2 Emiss. -
Decis. 1753/2000. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/vehicles/cars/documentation_en.htm.
Accessed 1 Jan 2012
European Parliament, Council of the European Union (2009) Directive 2009/30/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 amending Directive 98/70/EC as regards the
specification of petrol, diesel and gas-oil and introducing a mechanism to monitor and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions and amend. Off J Eur Union 140:88–113.
Faria R, Marques P, Garcia R, et al (2014) Primary and secondary use of electric mobility batteries from a
life cycle perspective. J Power Sources 262:169–177. doi: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.03.092
Garcia R, Marques P, Freire F (2014) Life-cycle assessment of electricity in Portugal. Appl Energy
134:563–572. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2014.08.067
ICCT (2010) Carbon Intensity of Crude Oil in Europe.
INE (2009) Projecções de População Residente em Portugal 2008-2060. Lisboa, Portugal
Jungbluth N (2007) Erdöl. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle
Inventories, Dubendorf
29
Keoleian G, Miller S, Fang A, Mosley J (2012) Life Cycle Material Data Update for GREET model.
Center for Sustainable Systems. Ann Arbor, Michigan
Kim HC (2003) Shaping Sustainable Vehicle Fleet Conversion Policies Based On Life Cycle
Optimization and Risk Analysis. PhD thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Moura F (2009) Car Organ Transplant - Anticipating Energy and Environmental Benefits of Cleaner
Technologies. PhD thesis, Instituto Superior Técnico, Lisboa
Nemry F, Leduc G, Mongelli I, Uihlein A (2008) Environmental Improvement of Passenger Cars

(IMPRO-car). Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Office for Official
Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg
PORDATA (2011) População Residente. In: PORDATA Base dados Port. Contemp. www.pordata.pt.
Accessed 20 Feb 2012
Silva M (2011) Electric vehicle diffusion in the Portuguese automobile market. MSc thesis, Instituto
Superior Técnico, Lisboa
USABC (2014) USABC Goals for Advanced Batteries for EVs. USABC - United States Advanced
Battery Consortium
30

IMPORTANTE Dynamic fleet based life cycle GHG of the introduction of EV in the Portuguese light duty fleet

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IMPORTANTE Dynamic fleet based life cycle GHG of the introduction of EV in the Portuguese light duty fleet

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supplementary Material for:

Dynamic fleet-based life-cycle greenhouse gas assessment of the

Email addresses: rita.garcia@dem.uc.pt (R. Garcia), jgregory@mit.edu (J. Gregory),

This supplementary material contains 30 pages, including 21 figures and 7 tables.

q(i,t) market share % ACAP (1999; 2003; 2005; Calculated based on Ya 33 67 0

F(i,k,t) Vehicle stock

Vehicle stock F(i,k,1995)

S-1.2 Vehicle density

Iav Vehicle assembly impacts

Ie(i,k,t) Electricity generation impacts

em(i,m) maintenance operation kg CO2 See Table S-5

Ilv Vehicle end-of-life impacts

Ilb(i,k,t) Battery end-of-life impacts

Vehicle production impacts

Iav=ev Iv(i,0,t)= Ib(i,0,t)= Iab=eb

Vehicle curb weight Battery curb weight Label

the USA Battery Consortium (USABC 2014), and constant thereafter.

Curb weight, wv(g,0,t) [kg] 1 400

Calendar year, t Battery weight, wb(e,0,t) [kg]

First-year vehicle distance ζ(i) σ(i)

Maintenance operation, Vehicle Cumulative vehicle Emission factor, Source

S-2.2.2 Fuel and electricity consumption

figures, according to Nemry et al. (2008).

assumed the same relative reduction for gasoline ICEVs).

5 2020 EU target (+17%)

2015 EU target (+17%) EU targets

2020 EU target (+17%)

Gasoline ICEV/BEV Diesel ICEV Moura (2009)

Gasoline ICEV (y=2010) Diesel ICEV (y=2010) BEV (y=2010)

Gasoline sales (DGEG) Gasoline consumption (estimated)

European Union 2009).

(Garcia et al. 2014).

Vehicle end-of-life impacts Battery end-of-life impacts

Ilv Ilb(i,k,t)= elb

elv wb(i,0,t-k) elb Parameter subject to

BAU scenario 2015 GHG emissions, Mton CO2 eq

Upper bound Lower bound

Upper bound Lower bound

Upper bound Lower bound

Upper bound Lower bound

Upper bound Lower bound

Upper bound Lower bound

Upper bound Lower bound

Upper bound Lower bound

Upper bound Lower bound

Upper bound Lower bound

Upper bound Lower bound

Upper bound Lower bound

Upper bound Lower bound

Upper bound Lower bound

Upper bound Lower bound

Upper bound Lower bound

Fuel consumption reduction rate (gasoline ICEV) -1% ​

Upper bound Lower bound

Upper bound Lower bound

Upper bound Lower bound

Upper bound Lower bound

Fuel consumption reduction rate (gasoline ICEV) -3% ​

Upper bound Lower bound

Upper bound Lower bound

Upper bound Lower bound

Upper bound Lower bound

Fuel consumption reduction rate (gasoline ICEV) -5% ​

Upper bound Lower bound

Fuel consumption reduction rate (gasoline ICEV) -1%

Fuel consumption reduction rate (gasoline ICEV) -3%

Fuel consumption reduction rate (gasoline ICEV) -5%

Fuel consumption reduction rate (gasoline ICEV) -8%