Abstract
Goal, Scope and Background
This paper describes the influence of the choice of the functional unit on the results of an environmental assessment of different battery technologies for electric and hybrid vehicles. Battery, hybrid and fuel cell electric vehicles are considered as being environmentally friendly. However, the batteries they use are sometimes said to be environmentally unfriendly. At the current state of technology different battery types can be envisaged: lead-acid, nickel-cadmium, nickel-metal hydride, lithium-ion and sodium-nickel chloride. The environmental impacts described in this paper are based on a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach.
One of the first critical stages of LCA is the definition of an appropriate and specific functional unit for electric and hybrid vehicle application. Most of the known LCA studies concerning batteries were performed while choosing different functional units, although this choice can influence the final results. An adequate functional unit, allowing to compare battery technologies in their real life vehicle application should be chosen.
The results of the LCA are important as they will be used as a decision support for the end-of-life vehicles directive 2000/53/EC (Official Journal of the European Communities L269/24 2000). As a consequence, a thorough analysis is required to define an appropriate functional unit for the assessment of batteries for electric vehicles. This paper discusses this issue and will mainly focus on traction batteries for electric vehicles.
Main Features
An overview of the different parameters to be considered in the definition of a functional unit to compare battery technologies for battery electric vehicle application is described and discussed. An LCA study is performed for the most relevant potential functional units. SimaPro 6 is used as a software tool and Eco-indicator 99 as an impact assessment method. The influence of the different selected functional units on the results (Eco-indicator Points) is discussed. The environmental impact of the different electric vehicle battery technologies is described. A sensitivity analysis illustrates the robustness of the obtained results.
Results and Discussion
Five main parameters are considered in each investigated functional unit: an equal depth of discharge is assumed, a relative number of batteries required during the life of the vehicle is calculated, the energy losses in the battery and the additional vehicle consumption due to the battery mass is included and the same lifetime distance target is taken into account. On the basis of the energy content, battery mass, number of cycles and vehicle autonomy three suitable functional units are defined: ‘battery packs with an identical mass’, ‘battery packs with an identical energy content’ and ‘battery packs with an identical one-charge range’.
The results show that the differences in the results between these three functional units are small and imply less variation on the results than the other uncertainties inherent to LCA studies. On the other hand, the results obtained using other, less adequate, functional units can be quite different.
Conclusions
When performing an LCA study, it’s important to choose an appropriate functional unit. Most of the time, this choice is unambiguous. However, sometimes this choice is more complicated when different correlated parameters have to be considered, as it is the case for traction batteries. When using a realistic functional unit, the result is not influenced significantly by the choice of one out of the three suitable functional units.
Additionally, the life cycle assessment allowed concluding that three electric vehicle battery technologies have a comparable environmental impact: lead-acid, nickel-cadmium and nickel-metal hydride. Lithium-ion and sodium-nickel chloride have lower environmental impacts than the three previously cited technologies when used in a typical battery electric vehicle application.
Recommendations and Perspectives
The article describes the need to consider all relevant parameters for the choice of a functional unit for an electric vehicle battery, as this choice can influence the conclusions. A more standardised method to define the functional unit could avoid these differences and could make it possible to compare the results of different traction battery LCA studies more easily.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alsema EA (2000): Environmental life cycle assessment of solar home systems. Department of Science Technology and Society, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands, pp 89
Biscaglia S, Coroller P (2000): Life Cycle Analysis of Electric Vehicle. Proceedings Electric Vehicle Symposium 17, Montreal, Canada, pp 17
Ciroth A, Fleischer G, Steinbach J (2004): Uncertainty Calculation in Life Cycle Assessments: A combined model of simulation and approximation. Int J LCA 9, 216–226
Cooper JS (2003): Specifying Functional Units and Reference Flows for Comparable Alternatives. Int J LCA 8, 337–349
Garcia MJA, Schlüter F (1996): Life-cycle assessment for batteries of Electric Vehicles. Master thesis, School of Technology Management and economics, Department of Transportation and Logistics, Chalmers University of Technology, Götenborg, pp 267
Heijungs R, Huijbregts MAJ (2004): A Review of Approaches to Treat Uncertainty in LCA. Proceedings iEMSs 2004, Osnabrück, Germany, pp 8
Hischier R, Reichart I (2003): Multifunctional Electronic Media — Traditional Media. The Problem of an Adequate Functional Unit: A case study of a printed newspaper, an internet newspaper and a TV broadcast. Int J LCA 8, 201–208
Huijbregts MAJ (1998): Application of Uncertainty and Variability in LCA. Part I: A General Framework for the Analysis of Uncertainty and Variability in Life Cycle Assessment. Int J LCA 3, 273–280
Investire (Investigation on Storage Technologies for Intermittent Renewable Energies) (2003): European Project. WP5 Environmental Issues, pp 25
Ishihara K, Nishimura K, Uchiyama Y (1999): Lifecycle Analysis of Electric Vehicles with Advanced Batteries in Japan. Proceedings Electric Vehicle Symposium 16, Beijing, China, pp 7
ISO 14040 (1997): Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework. International Standard ISO 14040. Geneva, Switzerland
ISO 14041 (1998): Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Life cycle assessment — Goal and scope definition and inventory analysis. International Standard ISO 14041. Geneva, Switzerland
ISO 14042 (2000): Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Life cycle impact assessment. International Standard ISO 14042. Geneva, Switzerland
ISO 14043 (2000): Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Life cycle interpretation. International Standard ISO 14042. Geneva, Switzerland
Klüppel H-J (1998): ISO 14041: Environmental management — Life Cycle Assessment — Goal and Scope Definition — Inventory Analysis. Int J LCA 3, 301
Matheys J (2004): Life Cycle Assessment of NiCd traction batteries. Master thesis. Department of Electrotechnical Engineering and Energy Technology. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium
Official Journal of the European Communities (2000): End-of-life Vehicle Directive 2000/53/EC. Available online 〈http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2000/l_269/l_26920001021en00340042.pdf〉
Rantik M (1999): Life Cycle Assessment of Five Batteries for Electric Vehicles under Different Charging Regimes. KFB-Meddelande, pp 28
Rydh CJ (1999): Environmental assessment of vanadium redox and lead-acid batteries for stationary energy storage. J Power Sources 80, 21–29
Rydh C J, Karlström M (2002): Life cycle inventory of recycling portable nickel-cadmium batteries. Resour, Conserv Recycling 34, 289–309
SUBAT (2005): Final public report. Available online 〈www.batteryelectric.com〉, pp 60
Van Autenboer W (2004): Life Cycle Assessment of Lead-acid traction batteries. Department of Electrotechnical Engineering and Energy Technology. Master thesis. Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium, pp 63
Van den Bossche P (2003): The electric vehicle: Raising the standards. PhD thesis Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, pp 485
Van Mierlo J, Maggetto G (2004): Innovative Iteration Algorithm for a Vehicle Simulation Program. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 53, 401–412
VROM (Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer) (1999): The Ecoindicator 99: A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Methodology Report, Publicatiereeks productenbeleid, nr. 1999/36A. The Netherlands, pp 144
Wiegard J (2001): Quantification of Greenhouse Gases at Visy Industries using Life Cycle Assessment. Master Thesis. Swinburne University of Technology, Australia, pp 165
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Matheys, J., Van Autenboer, W., Timmermans, JM. et al. Influence of functional unit on the life cycle assessment of traction batteries. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12, 191–196 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.04.322
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.04.322