sustainability
Article
Cradle-to-Grave Lifecycle Environmental Assessment of Hybrid
Electric Vehicles
Shafayat Rashid † and Emanuele Pagone *,†
Citation: Rashid, S.; Pagone, E.
Cradle-to-Grave Lifecycle
Environmental Assessment of Hybrid
Electric Vehicles. Sustainability 2023,
15, 11027. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su151411027
Academic Editor: Xu Li
Received: 9 June 2023
Revised: 29 June 2023
Accepted: 10 July 2023
Published: 14 July 2023
Copyright: © 2023 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 (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11027. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411027
Sustainable Manufacturing Systems Centre, School of Aerospace, Transport and Manufacturing,
Cranfield University, Cranfield MK43 0AL, UK; shafmk22@gmail.com
* Correspondence: e.pagone@cranfield.ac.uk; Tel.: +44-(0)123-475-4608
† These authors contributed equally to this work.
Abstract: Demand for sustainable transportation with a reduced environmental impact has led to the
widespread adoption of electrified powertrains. Hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs) and plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles (PHEVs) produce lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during the use phase of
their lifecycle, compared to conventional internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs). However, a
full understanding of their total environmental impact, from resource extraction to end-of-life (EOL),
of a contemporary, real-world HEV and PHEV remains broadly elusive in the scientific literature. In
this work, for the first time, a systematic cradle-to-grave lifecycle analysis (LCA) of a Toyota Prius
XW50, as a HEV and PHEV, was used to comprehensively assess its environmental impact throughout
its entire lifecycle using established lifecycle inventory databases. The LCA revealed that the gasoline
fuel cycle (extraction, refinement, and transportation) is a major environmental impact “hotspot”.
The more electrified PHEV model consumes 3.2% more energy and emits 5.6% more GHG emissions
within the vehicle’s lifecycle, primarily owed to the manufacturing and recycling of larger traction
batteries. However, when factoring in the fuel cycle, the PHEV model exhibits a 29.6% reduction
in overall cradle-to-grave life energy consumption, and a 17.5% reduction in GHG emissions, in
comparison to the less-electrified HEV. This suggests that the higher-electrified PHEV has a lower
environmental impact than the HEV throughout the whole lifecycle. The presented cradle-to-grave
LCA study can be a valuable benchmark for future research in comparing other HEVs and PHEVs or
different powertrains for similarly sized passenger vehicles.
Keywords: lifecycle; vehicles; environmental impact; hybrid; electric
1. Introduction
The transportation sector accounts for approximately 30% of total global energy
consumption and 37% of global CO2 emissions, with the highest reliance on fossil fuel
than any other sector [1]. Within the transportation sector, road vehicles, such as cars,
represent the largest share in energy consumption and GHG emissions. This had led
to considerable technological developments in vehicle drivetrain technology aimed at
reducing the environmental burden of road vehicles, in addition to meeting future energy
demands. Drivetrain electrification has been widely adopted in the automotive industry to
reduce GHG emissions during the usage phase of a vehicle’s lifecycle. There exist three
levels of drive train electrification: hybrid electric vehicle (HEV), plug-in hybrid electric
vehicle (PHEV), and battery electric vehicle (BEV). HEVs were the inaugural electrified
vehicles to hit the mass global market. Such vehicles augment a conventional internal
combustion engine (ICE) with electric motors, switching between the two to save fuel
and GHG emissions. On the other end of the scale, BEVs are powered solely by electric
motors, using electricity stored in an on-board battery. They represent the highest degree of
propulsion electrification. PHEVs sit between HEVs and BHEVs on the scale of drivetrain
electrification. They retain the use of an ICE but use a higher-capacity chargeable battery,
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11027 2 of 23

in comparison to HEVs. This permits the PHEV to drive for prolonged periods under fully
electric propulsion while the ICE is switched off.
Technological advancements in battery technologies, particularly in lithium-ion batter-
ies, led to significant improvements in energy storage capacity, longer driving range, and
reduced charging times. These advancements, along with decreasing costs, led to rapid
market growth of all forms of electric vehicles. Government incentives and regulations
intended to promote the usage of electric vehicles further contributed to the rapid market
expansion of electric vehicles, positioning the technology firmly as the future of trans-
portation. At the time of writing, BEVs experience the highest rate of market expansion.
However, due to their relatively high costs, in comparison to ICE-powered vehicles (ICEVs),
in addition to factors such as structural deficiencies, and consumer range anxiety, HEVs
and PHEVs remain the most widely sold forms of electric vehicles, accounting for a 77%
share of global electric vehicles [2].
According to the European Environmental Agency (EEA) [3], it is estimated that HEVs
emit 20–35% fewer CO2 emissions during the usage phase of their lifecycle compared to a
comparable ICE-powered vehicle. PHEVs, depending on the battery size, electric range,
and charging patterns, can offer up to 50% savings in CO2 emissions over ICE-powered
vehicles. However, a higher degree of drivetrain electrification is met with an increased
manufacturing effort to produce larger batteries. The use of heavy and rare-earth metals,
the electricity mix used for the charging of batteries (in PHEVs and BEVs), and the recycling
of batteries are highly energy-intensive operations that need to be carefully considered to
fully understand the net environmental effects of higher degrees of drivetrain electrification.
To comprehensively assess the net impact of electric vehicles, researchers have con-
ducted lifecycle assessment (LCA) studies of vehicles with a range of drivetrain configu-
rations. These studies vary greatly in detail and scope of the analysis performed, often
yielding different results and conclusions. Samaras et al. [4] compared the lifecycle GHG
emissions of a conventional ICEV, the Toyota Corolla, with a comparable HEV (Toyota
Prius), and three unnamed PHEVs differing in battery capacity and electrical ranges (30,
60, and 90 km). The results indicated a 32–42% reduction in GHG emissions for PHEVs,
in comparison with the Toyota Corolla ICEV. The HEV vehicle showed a smaller reduc-
tion, at 7–12% over the ICE-powered vehicle. The LCA of this study solely evaluated the
manufacturing and usage stages of the vehicle’s lifecycle. Other significant lifecycle stages,
including gasoline production, transportation, vehicle maintenance, and EOL, were not
accounted for in the LCA. Consequently, a comprehensive environmental impact evalu-
ation of the vehicle’s entire lifecycle could not be carried out. Another limitation of this
study was that the LCA was conducted solely within the context of the United States.
Wang et al. [5] conducted a cradle-to-grave LCA to assess the emissions of ICEVs, BEVs,
and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCVs), based on contemporary (2009, at the time of writing)
data, and projected (2020) data. The study reported an 8.6% lower total lifecycle energy
consumption of BEVs, in comparison to conventional ICEVs. At the same time, the total
lifecycle carbon emissions of BEVs were 16.16% higher than ICEVs, owing to a high degree
of fossil fuels in the energy-generation mix. Although the LCA study assessed a wide
range of drivetrain options (ICEVs, BEVs, and five types of FCVs), it did not include HEVs
and PHEV, which are the most prevailing types of EVs used worldwide. Additionally,
the LCA was constrained within the industrial and energy mix conditions of the People’s
Republic of China, which has a higher share of fossil-fuel-based energy generation than the
global average.
Qinyu et al. [6] evaluated the lifecycle GHG emissions of theoretical unnamed BEVs
and an ICEV through a cradle-to-gate LCA. The study reported that a BEV has approxi-
mately 50% higher CO2 emissions than ICEVs, within the cradle-to-gate lifecycle phase.
This was owed to the manufacturing of traction batteries, which results in significant GHG
emissions under heavy fossil-fuel-based energy-mix scenarios. The cradle-to-gate LCA
was bound between materials extraction and vehicle manufacturing. Consequently, the
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11027 3 of 23

full lifecycle environmental impact of these two drivetrain technologies could not be fully
established or compared.
Aaron et al. [7] conducted an LCA to assess the CO2 emissions of real-world ICEVs,
HEVs, and BEVs. The study reported a 90% reduction in well-to-wheels (WTW) lifecy-
cle CO2 emissions in BEVs, in comparison to conventional ICEVs. The WTW LCA only
considered the fuel cycle aspect of the total lifecycle. As a result, vehicle and battery man-
ufacturing, maintenance, and EOL were omitted within the LCA scope. In addition, the
study lacked the inclusion of PHEV vehicles. A similar well-to-wheel LCA was conducted
by Elgowainy et al. [8], which compared the WTW fuel-cycle energy consumption and
GHG emissions of unnamed PHEVs with HEVs. The study reported an approximately 46%
reduction in well-to-wheel GHG emissions in gasoline-powered PHEVs, in comparison to
conventional ICEVs. Further reductions could be achieved by using alternate fuels, particu-
larly biomass-based fuels, providing the energy mixed used for their manufacturing does
not predominantly consist of fossil-fuel-based sources. However, like the previous study
(Aaron et al.), the researchers did not incorporate the manufacturing process, maintenance,
and EOL, within the scope of the LCA. Recently, Wang et al. [9] conducted a WTW LCA
of unnamed HEVs, PHEVs, and BEVs within the context of Chinese industrial conditions.
The study reported a 44.7% disparity in WTW petroleum energy consumption between an
HEV and PHEV, owing to lower utilization of the ICE within the PHEV. However, like the
aforementioned publications, the WTW LCA did not take into account energy-intensive
lifecycle stages, such as vehicle and battery manufacturing, maintenance, and EOL. As a
result, the overall environmental burden of vehicular drivetrain technologies could not be
assessed or compared through WTW LCA alone.
Gao et al. [10], conducted a cradle-to-grave LCA of real-world ICEVs (Toyota Corolla),
HEVs (Toyota Prius), PHEVs (Toyota Prius Plug in), BEV (Nissan Leaf), and FCV (Honda
Clarity). Surprisingly, the study reported the lowest lifecycle energy consumption and GHG
emissions within the HEV vehicle, with the second least degree of drivetrain electrification.
This was owed to high crude-to-gasoline pathway efficiency (82.6%). In comparison,
the lifecycle energy consumption and GHG emissions of vehicles with higher degrees
of electrification, such as the PHEVs, FCVs and BEVs, were not encouraging, owed to
the low-efficiency pathway for electricity generation within the well-to-pump (WTP) fuel
cycle phase. However, a comprehensive breakdown of the energy consumption and GHG
emissions calculations throughout all stages of the vehicle lifecycle, from material extraction
(to produce gasoline, as well as vehicle component manufacturing), to EOL, was lacking.
Pipitone et al. [11] recently reported cradle-to-grave LCA on fictitious (with specifica-
tions modelled on real-world vehicles) ICEVs, HEVs, and BEVs. The study indicated that
vehicles with higher drivetrain electrification, such as BEVs, exhibit higher environmental
impact, primarily due to the manufacturing process of lithium-ion batteries, particularly
within a fossil-fuel-prevalent energy mix. However, the LCA did not incorporate the highly
energy in tensive fuel cycle phase, undermines comparisons between the three powertrain
technologies. As a result, the LCA could not highlight any potential savings in energy
consumption and environmental emissions due to the reduced gasoline consumption of
electrified drivetrains.
Petrauskiene et al. [12] conducted a cradle-to-grave LCA comparing real-world ICEVs,
HEVs, and BEVs within a Lithuanian context. The study revealed that, under the 2015
energy mix, greater drivetrain electrification of BEVs and HEVs exhibited a higher degree
of environmental impact when compared to diesel-powered ICEVs. However, within a
2020–2050 energy mix, where a higher share of renewable power is anticipated, this trend
reverses, where BEVs are expected to have the least environmental impact.
Table 1 summarizes the reviewed LCA literature, their scope, limitations, and the
conclusion on whether increased drivetrain electrification reduces environmental impact or
not. It is evident that conclusions vary between different researchers, owed to differences
in datasets, as well as the scope and system boundary of the LCA performed. It is also
evident that there is a lack of a comprehensive cradle-to-grave LCA of a contemporary,
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11027 4 of 23

real-world HEV and PHEV. As a result, the net environmental impact of the said drivetrain
technologies remains elusive. To bridge this knowledge gap, we have employed a com-
prehensive cradle-to-grave LCA methodology that encompasses the entire lifecycle of a
real-world, contemporary HEV and PHEV, from raw material extraction to EOL, under
contemporary industrial practices, conditions, energy mixes and industrial infrastructure.
Using this method, the total lifecycle environmental impact of HEV and PHEV drivetrain
technologies was assessed. The LCA methodology presented here could be adopted for
future investigations aimed at evaluating the net lifecycle environmental impact of a range
of drivetrain technologies, with particular emphasis on degrees of drivetrain electrification.
In addition, it can also be employed to examine the influence of regional infrastructure
and energy generation mixes on the relative environmental performances of vehicular
and drivetrain technologies. Lastly, by utilizing the LCA framework established within
this study, researchers and engineers can identify specific environmental impact hotspots
within the full vehicular lifecycle.

Table 1. Summery of reviewed literature, taking the stand point whether higher drivetrain electrifica-
tion reduces environmental impact or not.

Reduction of
Environmental Impact
Publication Scope of LCA Subject of LCA Limitations
through Higher
Electrification?
(1). Lifecycle of Gasoline fuel not
included in the LCA scope
(2). Transportation, vehicle
Samaras et al. [4] Cradle-to-gate ICEV, HEV, PHEV maintenance, EOL not included in the Yes
LCA scope
(3). LCA is bound by the conditions of
the US
(1). HEVs and PHEVs not included in
the LCA
ICEV, BEV, five types of (2). LCA was bound by the conditions Yes (energy consumption),
Wang et al. [5] Cradle-to-grave
FCVs of Chin No (GHG emissions)
(3). The LCA did not study real-world
vehicles
(1). HEVs and PHEVs not included in
the LCA
(2). The LCA did not study real-world
Qinyu et al. [6] Cradle-to-gate ICEV, BEV vehicles No
(3). Cradle-to-gate scope did not take
into account vehicle usage,
maintenance, and EOL.
(1). LCA scope limited to WTP stage
Aaron et al. [7] Well-to-wheel ICEVs, HEVs, BEVs Yes
(2). PHEVs not included in the LCA
(1). LCA scope limited to WTP stage
(2). PHEVs not included in the LCA
Elgowainy et al. [8] Well-to-wheel ICEV, HEV, PHEV Yes
(3). The LCA did not study real-world
vehicles
(1). LCA scope limited to WTP stage
(2). LCA was bound by the conditions
Wang et al. [9] Well-to-wheel HEV, PHEV, BEV of China Yes
(3). The LCA did not study real-world
vehicles
(1). Lack of comprehensive breakdown
Gao et al. [10] Cradle-to-grave HEV, PHEV, BEV, FCV of environmental impact calculations No
within all lifecycle stages
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11027 5 of 23

Table 1. Cont.

Reduction of
Environmental Impact
Publication Scope of LCA Subject of LCA Limitations
through Higher
Electrification?
(1). The LCA did not study real-world
vehicles
(2). The LCA was bound by the
Pipitone et al. [11] Cradle-to-grave ICEV, HEV, BEV conditions of European continent No
(3). PHEVs not included in the LCA
(4). The LCA did not take into account
the WTW fuel cycle
(1). PHEVs not included in the LCA
Petrauskiene et al. No (2015 setting), Yes
Cradle-to-grave ICEV, HEV, BEV (2). The LCA is bound by the
[12] (2020–2050 setting)
conditions of Lithuania

The goal, scope, methodology, and underlying assumptions of the LCA is elucidated
in Section 2. Subsequently, Section 3 presents the results and discussion in a systematic
bottom-up manner, starting from the upstream stage (resource extraction) to the final
downstream stage (EOL).

2. Materials and Methods

In this study, the environmental impact of HEV and PHEV drivetrain technologies was
assessed through the application of the LCA methodology, as prescribed by ISO 14040. This
methodology compromises four steps: goal and scope (1), lifecycle inventory (2), lifecycle
impact assessment (3), and interpretation of results (4).

2.1. Goal and Scope

The goal of the presented study is to assess the environmental impact of HEV and
PHEV drivetrain technologies. This was achieved by quantifying the energy consumption
and GHG emissions throughout the entire lifecycle of a Toyota Prius XW50, in HEV and
PHEV configuration. It is assumed the vehicle will travel 250,000 km during the usage
phase of its lifecycle. This is the functional unit of the LCA. The choice of the XW50 Prius
was based on its widespread popularity. Additionally, the HEV and PHEV configurations
possess similar technical specifications, as summarised in Table 2, differing mostly in
the size of the lithium-ion batteries used within the hybrid drive system. As the two
models are broadly similar, differing mostly in battery capacity, a direct comparison on the
environmental impact of HEV and PHEV drivetrain configurations can be made.

Table 2. Specification of HEV and PHEV models subject to cradle-to-grave LCA. Data obtained
from [13].

Vehicle Parameter Toyota Prius XW50 HEV Toyota Prius XW50 PHEV
Fuel type Gasoline Gasoline
2ZR-FXE gasoline engine + dual 2ZR-FXE gasoline engine + dual
Powertrain
motor-generator system motor-generator system
Curb Weight (kg) 1575 1605
Power Output (hp) 123 123
Hybrid Fuel-Cell Battery Lithium Ion Lithium Ion
Mass of Hybrid Fuel-Cell Battery (kg) 39 151
Battery Capacity (kWh) 1.31 4.4
Range Under Full Electric Mode (km) N/A 24
 looked. For instance, due to a higher degree of electrification, PHEVs are desi
sume less fossil fuel, and emit fewer GHG emissions than HEVs during the
of the lifecycle. However, achieving these savings through a greater degree
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11027 6 of 23
electrification demands a greater degree of manufacturing effort to produce l
ies. Therefore, it is imperative to adopt a cradle-to-grave approach to evalu
The LCA analysis performed in this study encompasses all stages of a vehicle’s life-
these contrasting factors
cycle. prevail,
This is known to gain anLCA,
as a cradle-to-grave accurate assessment
which defines onanalysis.
the scope of the the net en
The cradle-to-grave scope is the most extensive form of LCA, with the broadest bound-
impact. aries. This holistic approach ensures that all significant factors are accounted for and not
overlooked. For instance, due to a higher degree of electrification, PHEVs are designed to
consume less fossil fuel, and emit fewer GHG emissions than HEVs during the usage phase
2.2. Lifecycle Inventory of the lifecycle. However, achieving these savings through a greater degree of drivetrain
electrification demands a greater degree of manufacturing effort to produce larger batteries.
The lifecycle inventory is a list of environmental exchanges throughout
Therefore, it is imperative to adopt a cradle-to-grave approach to evaluate which of these
of a product or process. The product lifecycle is first split into discretised st
contrasting factors prevail, to gain an accurate assessment on the net environmental impact.

lifecycle flow model. The

2.2. Lifecycle list of inputs and outputs, which represents the inv
Inventory
The lifecycle inventory is a list of environmental exchanges throughout the lifecycle
then identified, of
and quantified within all stages of the product lifecycle. Figure
a product or process. The product lifecycle is first split into discretised stages using a
a cradle-to-grave lifecycle
lifecycle flow
flow model. model
The list ofandan
of inputs HEV
outputs, and
which PHEV,
represents from resource
the inventories, are
then identified, and quantified within all stages of the product lifecycle. Figure 1 illustrates
EOL. The cradle-to-grave
a cradle-to-gravelifecycle
lifecycle flowcan
modelbe divided
of an intofrom
HEV and PHEV, tworesource
phases, thetofuel c
extraction
vehicle cycle. EOL. The cradle-to-grave lifecycle can be divided into two phases, the fuel cycle, and the
vehicle cycle.

Figure 1. Illustration of cradle-to-grave lifecycle model of HEVs and PHEVs.

Figure 1. Illustration of cradle-to-grave lifecycle model of HEVs and PHEVs.

The fuel cycle concerns the manufacturing, transportation, and usage o

fuel. It is further decomposed into two phases, well-to-pump (WTP) and pum
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11027 7 of 23

The fuel cycle concerns the manufacturing, transportation, and usage of automobile
fuel. It is further decomposed into two phases, well-to-pump (WTP) and pump-to-wheels
(PTW). The WTP phase encompasses the extraction of raw materials such as petroleum, the
transportation of the said materials to refineries, refining process (into gasoline), and distri-
bution to petrol pumps (refuelling stations). The PTW phase concerns the consumption of
gasoline during the operational phase of the vehicle. Combining WTP with PTW yields
the well-to-wheels (WTW) fuel cycle, which is the complete lifecycle of a vehicle’s fuel.
The input inventories within all stages of the WTW fuel cycle are electrical and fossil-fuel
energy, which are required for the operation of various machinery and processes. The
output inventory is GHG emissions.
The vehicle lifecycle phase concerns the manufacturing, operational usage and of end-
of-life (EOL). It encompasses the extraction of materials required for the manufacturing of
vehicular components, the manufacturing of vehicular components, their assembly into a
complete vehicle, distribution to 4S shops, maintenance, and EOL. The input inventories
include electrical and fossil-fuel-based energy, as well as material inputs required within
the manufacturing process. The list of material inputs for the manufacturing of HEV and
PHEV vehicular components is summarized in Table 3. This was obtained by multiplying
the mass fraction of each material with the total mass of the vehicle (excluding batteries and
fluids). Table 4 summarizes the material inputs for the manufacturing of vehicular batteries,
and their amount within the HEV and PHEV model. Table 5 summarizes vehicular fluid
inputs, and the amounts used in the HEV and PHEV model. The output inventory within
all stages of the vehicle lifecycle is GHG emissions.

Table 3. Material input inventory for the manufacturing of HEV and PHEV vehicular components
(excluding lithium-ion batteries). Data obtained from [14].

Mass Amount in HEV (kg) Mass Amount in PHEV (kg)

Total mass of Vehicle Components
1378 1301
(excluding batteries and fluid)
Steel 899.8 865.2
Cast Iron 77.2 67.6
Forged Aluminium 27.6 22.1
Cast Aluminium 67.5 59.9
Copper 57.9 58.5
Glass 35.8 37.7
Plastic 148.8 139.2
Rubber 23.4 22.1
Other (Magnesium + PET) 40 28.6

Table 4. Material input inventory for the manufacturing of HEV and PHEV starter (lead-acid), and
propulsive (lithium-ion) batteries. Data obtained from [14].

Amount in HEV and Mass Amount in HEV Amount in PHEV

Lead-Acid Battery Lithium-Ion Battery
PHEV (kg) (kg) (kg)
Lead 11.7 Lithium Iron Phosphate 10.8 50.43
Sulfuric Acid 1.35 Graphite 4.78 22.05
Plastic Polypropylene 1.04 Adhesive 0.819 3.78
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11027 8 of 23

Table 4. Cont.

Amount in HEV and Mass Amount in HEV Amount in PHEV

Lead-Acid Battery Lithium-Ion Battery
PHEV (kg) (kg) (kg)
Glass Fibre 0.357 Copper 5.77 16.5
Water 21.3 Forged Aluminium 8.93 28.8
Lithium
Other 1.36 0.663 2.78
Hexafluorophosphate
Ethylene carbonate ester 1.91 8
Dimethyl carbonate ester 1.91 8
Polypropylene 0.858 2.57
Polyethylene 0.156 0.453
Steel 0.741 2.11
Thermal Insulation 0.117 0.453
Glycol 0.507 1.51
Other 1.8 4.564

Table 5. Vehicle fluid input inventory for HEV and PHEV. Data obtained from [14].

Fluid Type Amount in HEV (kg) Amount in PHEV (kg)

Lubricant 4.4 3.9
Brake Fluid 1 0.9
Transmission Fluid 0.9 0.8
Coolant 11.6 10.4
Wiper Fluid 3 2.7
Fuel Additive 15.2 13.6

2.3. Lifecycle Impact Analysis

The environmental impact of the HEV and PHEV drivetrain technology was assessed
using energy consumption and GHG emissions as impact categories. The cradle-to-grave
lifecycle flow model, as illustrated in Figure 1, was modelled using the GREET 2019 LCA
software package, developed by Argonne National Laboratory [15]. The list of input
inventories, as summarized in Tables 3–5 were inputted into the GREET model. Based
on the comprehensive and verified database, the GREET software package calculates the
energy consumption and GHG emission intensity within each stage of the cradle-to-grave
lifecycle. Table 6 summarizes the energy and GHG emissions intensities within each
stage of the cradle-to-grave lifecycle [16]. The energy consumption and GHG emission
intensities (normalization factors) obtained from GREET, for each stage of the lifecycle,
were multiplied by the total amount used within the lifecycle (normalization quantity), to
obtain the environmental impact, as defined in Equation (1).

Ei = N f NC (1)

where Ei is the environmental impact, such as energy consumption or GHG emissions, N f

the normalisation factor, such as energy consumption or GHG emission intensity, NC the
normalisation quantity, such as the total lifecycle energy equivalent consumed.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11027 9 of 23

Table 6. Definition of energy consumption intensity and GHG emission intensity within each
lifecycle stage.

Energy Consumption GHG Emissions Intensity

Lifecycle Stage
Intensity (SEI) (GEI)
Resource Extraction
Energy equivalent (MJ) Mass amount (g) of GHG
Transportation required to produce a unit emitted, to produce a unit
MJ equivalent of gasoline MJ equivalent of gasoline
Refinement
(MJ/MJ) (g/MJ)
Distribution
Fuel Cycle Energy equivalent (MJ) of
Mass amount (g) of GHG
gasoline consumed per km
emitted per km travelled
Usage travelled during the usage
during the usage phase of
phase of the lifecycle
the lifecycle (g/km)
(MJ/km)
Vehicle Body Energy (MJ) required to Mass amount (g) of GHG
Manufacturing produce a unit kg of emitted for every kg of
Cradle-to-grave
Vehicle Battery material required for the produced material required
lifecycle
Manufacturing manufacturing of vehicular for the manufacturing of
components (MJ/kg) vehicular components
Vehicle Fluid
(g/Kg)
Manufacturing
Energy (MJ) require per Mass amount (g) of GHG
Assembly unit kg of vehicle assembly emitted per unit kg of
(MJ/kg) vehicle assembly
Vehicle Cycle
Mass amount of GHG
Energy (MJ) required to
Transportation emitted per unit kg moved
move unit kg (MJ/kg)
(g/kg)
Energy (MJ) required to Mass amount of GHG
Maintenance replace unit kg of material emitted per kg of material
(MJ/kg) replaced (MJ/kg)
Energy (MJ) required per Mass amount (g) of GHG
End-Of-Life unit kg of recycled material emitted per unit kg of
(MJ/kg) recycled material (g/kg)

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Fuel Cycle
The first part of the cradle-to-grave LCA consisted of the fuel chain. The fuel chain
consists of an upper and lower stream phase, known as well-to-pump (WTP) and pump-to-
well (PTW), respectively.

3.1.1. WTP
Figure 2 plots the energy equivalent of inputs required within all four stages of the
WTP fuel cycle to produce a unit MJ of gasoline. The results highlight the refinement
stage as the most energy intensive within the upstream WTP fuel cycle. It accounts for
70% of the total WTP fuel cycle energy consumption. This is followed by extraction
(20%), transportation (6.7%), and distribution (8.6%). Within the extraction, transportation,
and refining stages, electrical energy accounts for slightly over half of all energy inputs.
This is due to high reliance on electrical equipment within the extraction, refining, and
transportation stages, such as pump motors, drilling rigs, compressors, and railway-based
transportation that employ electrical locomotives. These results are based on the average
energy global energy mix, obtained from GREET 2019, where fossil-fuel based power
generation prevails. This is particularly the case in highly industrialized economies like the
People’s Republic of China, the largest automotive manufacturer globally, which primarily
relies upon coal-based power stations for electricity generation. A total of 83% of WTP
 models are expected to consume 219,736, and 121,121 MJ equivalen
the usage stage of the lifecycle, respectively. These are the normalisa
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEWcalculation of WTP energy consumption and GHG emissions. 10 ofUsin
22

Sustainability 2023, 15, 11027

WTP energy consumption and GHG emissions were obtained, 10 of 23
presen
58% lower WTP energy consumption of the PHEV can be attributed
gallon of gasoline is equivalent to 121 MJ of potential energy. Thus, the HEV and PHEV
of electric locomotion, resulting in a lower demand for gasoline fuel.
models are expected to consume 219,736, and 121,121 MJ equivalent of gasoline during
fuel cycle electrical demand is generated from fossil-fuel-based power sources. The fossil-
thefuel-based
usage stage of the
energy lifecycle,
sources respectively.
include coal (47%),These areand
oil (34%) the natural
normalisation quantity
gas (0.18%). for the
This is
2 calculation
illustrated by the pie chart in Figure 3, which reveals the global average energy mix. The the
of WTP energy consumption and GHG emissions. Using Equation (1),
WTP energy 17%
remainder consumption and
of electricity GHG emissions
generated stem fromwere obtained, presented
non-fossil-fuel-based in Figure
sources such as4. The
1.8 58% lowerand
nuclear WTP energysources.
renewable consumption of theclear
It is therefore PHEV thatcan
the be
WTPattributed
fuel cycleto its higher
phase degree
is highly
Intensity (MJ/MJ)

dependent on coal-based energy sources.

of electric locomotion, resulting in a lower demand for gasoline fuel.
1.6
2 0.3
1.4
1.8
Intensity (MJ/MJ)

GHG Emissions intensity (tonnes/km)

1.2 0.25
1.6
Consumption

1
1.4
0.2
1.2
0.8
Consumption

1 0.15
0.6
0.8
Energy

0.4
0.6
0.1
Energy

0.2
0.4
0.05
0.2
0
0 Extraction Transportation Refining 0 Distribution
Extraction Transportation Refining Distribution
Electrical
Electrical EnergyCoal
Energy Coal
Crude Oil Crude Oil Gas Natural
Natural Gas Fuels Other
Other Fossil GHGFossil Fuels G

Figure 2. Energy
Figure
Figure inputs
2. Energy inputsrequired
2. Energy inputsto
required torequired
produceunit
produce unit
toMJMJ
of of
producegasoline
gasoline within
unit
withinMJ WTP
WTPof fuel cycle.within
gasoline
fuel cycle. WTP

Coal Crude Oil Natural Gas Other

Figure 3. Global energy mix, obtained from GREET 2019.

Coal Crude Oil Natural Gas Other

Figure
Figure 3. Global
3. Global energy
energy mix, mix,
obtained obtained
from from
GREET 2019. GREET 2019.
The points within Figure 2 plot the equivalent GHG emissions emitted per MJ of
gasoline produced, within all four stages of the WTP fuel cycle phase. The results show a
 Sustainability 2023, 15, 11027 11 of 23

strong correlation between energy intensity and GHG emissions, with the refining stage
consuming the most energy as well as emitting the most GHGs. The corresponding increase
in GHG emissions from increased energy consumption can be attributed to the use of fossil
fuel, namely, coal-based energy sources for electricity generation. In addition, much
equipment in the extraction and refining stage requires direct fossil fuel inputs, such as fuel
oil, which results in GHG emissions. CO2 emissions remain the most dominant form of
GHG emissions, accounting for 66%, 67%, 78%, and 86% of all GHG emissions within the
extraction, transportation, reining, and distribution stages, respectively.
Based on these results, the total WTP fuel cycle energy consumption and GHG emis-
sions were calculated using Equation (1) defined earlier. The service life of a vehicle was
assumed to be 250,000 km. According to Toyota, the average fuel consumption for the HEV
and PHEV model is 86 and 156 MPG (EPA standard) [17]. Assuming the specific range
(MPG) remains constant throughout the entire use phase of the vehicle lifecycle, the total
gasoline consumption after driving 250,000 km is expected to be 1816 and 1001 US gallons
for the HEV and PHEV models, respectively. According to the EPA [18], 1 US gallon of
gasoline is equivalent to 121 MJ of potential energy. Thus, the HEV and PHEV models
are expected to consume 219,736, and 121,121 MJ equivalent of gasoline during the usage
stage of the lifecycle, respectively. These are the normalisation quantity for the calculation
of WTP energy consumption and GHG emissions. Using Equation (1), the WTP energy
consumption and GHG emissions were obtained, presented in Figure 4. The 58% lower 11 of 2
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
WTP energy consumption of the PHEV can be attributed to its higher degree of electric
locomotion, resulting in a lower demand for gasoline fuel.

600 7

6
WTP Energy Consumption (GJ/car)

500 WTP GHG emissions (tons/car)

5
400
4
300 Energy Consumption
3 GHG emissions
200
2

100 1

0 0
HEV PHEV

Figure4.4.WTP
Figure WTP energy
energy consumption
consumption and GHG
and GHG emissions.
emissions.

3.1.2. PTW
3.1.2. PTW
Using the energy consumption and GHG emissions intensities obtained from the
GREET Using
model,the energy
plotted consumption
in Figure 5, the totaland PTWGHGenergyemissions
consumption intensities
and GHGobtained
emissionsfrom th
GREET
were model,using
calculated plotted in Figure
Equation (1).5,This
the total PTW energy
is presented consumption
in Figure andindicate
6. The results GHG emission
were calculated using Equation (1). This is presented in Figure 6.
that the PHEV model consumes 14.7% less energy than the HEV. This resulted in an even The results indicate tha
the PHEV
larger model
disparity consumes
in GHG 14.7%
emissions less energy
between the twothan the where
models, HEV. This resulted
the PHEV in an eve
model
emits
larger25% fewer GHGs.
disparity in GHG This is owed between
emissions to a higher degree
the of electrification,
two models, where the resulting in a
PHEV model emit
lower utilization of the ICE during usage. It is worth noting that the reduction
25% fewer GHGs. This is owed to a higher degree of electrification, resulting in a lowe in GHG
emissions
utilizationoffered
of thebyICEthe more usage.
during electrified
It isPHEV
worthmodel
notingisthat
higher
thethan the reduction
reduction in GHGinemission
energy consumption. This is owed to additional demand in electrical energy that is drawn
offered by the more electrified PHEV model is higher than the reduction in energy con
from the national grid to charge the rechargeable batteries. This demand is predominantly
sumption. This is owed to additional demand in electrical energy that is drawn from th
national grid to charge the rechargeable batteries. This demand is predominantly met b
coal-powered energy sources within the national grid. As a result, 16% of the PTW energ
consumption within the PHEV model stems from coal-based energy sources. In contras
the energy consumed within the HEV’s PTW fuel cycle is exclusively derived from th
 were calculated using Equation (1). This is presented in Figure 6. The results indicate that
the PHEV model consumes 14.7% less energy than the HEV. This resulted in an even
larger disparity in GHG emissions between the two models, where the PHEV model emits
25% fewer GHGs. This is owed to a higher degree of electrification, resulting in a lower
utilization of the ICE during usage. It is worth noting that the reduction in GHG emissions
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11027 12 of 23
offered by the more electrified PHEV model is higher than the reduction in energy con-
sumption. This is owed to additional demand in electrical energy that is drawn from the
national grid to charge the rechargeable batteries. This demand is predominantly met by
met by coal-powered
coal-powered energyenergy
sourcessources
withinwithin the national
the national grid.
grid. As As a 16%
a result, result,
of 16% of theenergy
the PTW PTW
energy consumption within the PHEV model stems from coal-based energy
consumption within the PHEV model stems from coal-based energy sources. In contrast, sources. In
contrast, the energy consumed within the HEV’s PTW fuel cycle is exclusively
the energy consumed within the HEV’s PTW fuel cycle is exclusively derived from the derived
from the combustion
combustion of gasoline,
of gasoline, due to itsdue toof
lack itsalack of a rechargeable
rechargeable battery. battery.

1.8 140
Energy Consumption Intensity

GHG emission intensity (g/km)

1.6 120
1.4
100
1.2
(MJ/km)

1 80
0.8 60
0.6
40
0.4
0.2 20

0 0
HEV PHEV

Specific Energy Consumption (Gasoline) Specific Energy Consumption (Electricity)

Specific GHG emissions
ability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 22
Figure5.5.PTW
Figure PTWenergy
energyconsumption
consumptionand
andGHG
GHGemission
emissionintensities.
intensities.

450 35

400
30
PTW Energy Consumption (GJ/Car)

PTW GHG Emissions (tonnes/car)

350
25
300

250 20
Energy Consumption
200 15 GHG emissions
150
10
100
5
50

0 0
HEV PHEV

Figure 6. PTW energy consumption and GHG emissions.

Figure 6. PTW energy consumption and GHG emissions.

3.1.3. WTW Energy

3.1.3. Consumption
WTW Energy Consumption
Consolidating Consolidating
WTP and PTW energy
WTP and consumption and GHG emissions,
PTW energy consumption and GHGa emissions,
compari- a comparison
son of the totalofWTW fuel cycle is presented in Figure 7. The results shows
the total WTW fuel cycle is presented in Figure 7. The results shows that the PHEVthat the PHEV
model consumes 37.5%
model less energy
consumes 37.5% and
lessemits 35%
energy andless GHGs
emits 35% than
lessthe
GHGsHEVthan model. This model. This is
the HEV
is attributed toattributed
the highertodegree of electrification,
the higher resulting in resulting
degree of electrification, a lesser gasoline consump-
in a lesser gasoline consumption.
tion. These findings
These agree
findingswith those
agree reported
with by Elgowainy
those reported et al. [8],etand
by Elgowainy Wang
al. [8], andetWang
al. [9],
et al. [9], though
though it mustit be
must be stated
stated that thethataforementioned
the aforementioned researchers
researchers utilized
utilized different
different datasets and energy
datasets
and energy mixesmixes within
within thetheLCALCA than
than thethe presented
presented study,ininaddition
study, additiontotostudying
studyingdif-different models
ferent models of vehicles. It is worth noting that the PTW/WTW energy consumption ratioratio is higher
of vehicles. It is worth noting that the PTW/WTW energy consumption
is higher withinwithin the PHEV
the PHEV model, model,
wherewhere53.7%53.7%
of theof theWTW
total total WTW fuel energy
fuel cycle cycle energy
is con-is consumed at
sumed at the PTW phase. In comparison, only 43% of the total WTW fuel cycle is con-
sumed in the HEV’s PTW phase. This is due to additional electrical energy inputs in the
PHEV model for the recharging of batteries. This additional demand for electrical energy
is met from the national grid, whereas the HEV model charges exclusively charges its
 Sustainability 2023, 15, 11027 13 of 23

the PTW phase. In comparison, only 43% of the total WTW fuel cycle is consumed in the
HEV’s PTW phase. This is due to additional electrical energy inputs in the PHEV model
for the recharging of batteries. This additional demand for electrical energy is met from
023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW the national grid, whereas the HEV model charges exclusively charges its13
traction
of 22 batteries
through the ICE, and therefore does not require any other energy inputs during the PTW
fuel cycle phase besides gasoline.

1200 40
WTW Energy Consumption (GJ/car)

35

WTW GHG Emissions (tonnes/car)

1000
30
800
25

600 20

15
400
10
200
5

0 0
HEV PHEV

WTP PTW GHG Emissions

Figure 7. WTW energy consumption

Figure and
7. WTW energy GHG emissions.
consumption and GHG emissions.

3.2. Vehicle Lifecycle

3.2. Vehicle Lifecycle
3.2.1. Vehicle Component Manufacturing
3.2.1. Vehicle Component Manufacturing
Table 7 summarizes the energy consumption and GHG emission intensity associated
Table 7 summarizes the energytransport,
with the extraction, consumption and GHG emission
and manufacturing intensity
of materials associated
used for the manufacturing
with the extraction, transport,components.
of vehicular and manufacturing of materials
Using Equation used
(1), the totalfor the manufacturing
energy consumption and GHG
of vehicular components. Using Equation
emissions associated with the(1), the total energy
manufacturing consumption
of vehicular componentsandwere
GHGcalculated,
presented in Figure 8. The results indicate a 10.7% reduction
emissions associated with the manufacturing of vehicular components were calculated, in energy consumption and
an 8.9%
presented in Figure reduction
8. The results in GHG emissions
indicate within the in
a 10.7% reduction PHEV model.
energy This can beand
consumption attributed to
the lower use of energy-intensive materials, such as ferrous alloys, aluminium, PET, and
an 8.9% reduction in GHG emissions within the PHEV model. This can be attributed to
magnesium [19].
the lower use of energy-intensive materials, such as ferrous alloys, aluminium, PET, and
magnesium [19].Table 7. Specific energy consumption and GHG emissions of materials used for the manufacturing of
vehicle components. Data obtained from GREET.
Table 7. Specific energy consumption and GHG emissions of materials used for the manufacturing
of vehicle components. Data obtained Energy Consumption GHG Emission Intensity
Material from GREET.
Intensity (MJ/kg) (g/kg)
Material Energy ConsumptionSteel
Intensity (MJ/kg) GHG
56.82 Emission Intensity (g/kg)
7305
Steel 56.82Iron 17.64 7305 1327
Iron 17.64Aluminium
Forged 208.08 1327 2170
ed Aluminium 208.08
Cast Aluminium 221.28 2170 2301
st Aluminium 221.28
Copper 43.48
2301 4025
Copper 43.48Glass 21.78
4025 2134
Glass 21.78
Plastic 114.8
2134 7640
Plastic 114.8 7640
Rubber 43.67 4200
Magnesium 394.51 37852
PET 96.44 6219
 Sustainability 2023, 15, 11027 14 of 23

Table 7. Cont.

Energy Consumption GHG Emission Intensity

Material
Intensity (MJ/kg) (g/kg)
Rubber 43.67 4200
Magnesium 394.51 37852
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 22
PET 96.44 6219

120 14

100 12
Energy Consumption (GJ/car)

GHG Emissions (tonnes/car)

10
80
8
60
6
40
4

20 2

0 0
HEV PHEV

Steel Cast Iron Forged Aluminium

Cast Aluminium Copper Glass
Plastic Rubber Other (Magnesium + PET)
GHG Emissions

Figure 8. 8.Energy
Figure consumption
Energy consumption andand
GHGGHG emissions
emissions associated
associated with the manufacturing
with the manufacturing of vehicle
of vehicle components.
components.
Figure 9 plots the energy consumption and GHG emissions associated with the manu-
facturing
Figure of vehicle
9 plots batteries.
the energyThe results indicate
consumption andaGHG large emissions
disparity inassociated
the energy consump-
with the man-
ufacturing of vehicle batteries. The results indicate a large disparityand
tion (by 3.3 times) and GHG emissions (by 3.2 times) between the PHEV in HEV model. con-
the energy
This is attributed to the much larger lithium-ion battery employed on the PHEV model, at
sumption (by 3.3 times) and GHG emissions (by 3.2 times) between the PHEV and HEV
154 kg compared to 39 kg in the HEV model.
model. This is attributed to the much larger lithium-ion battery employed on the PHEV
model,
3.2.2. at 154 kg
Vehicle compared
Fluid to 39 kg in the HEV model.
Manufacturing
Figure 10 plots the energy consumption and GHG emissions associated with the
manufacture
16 of vehicle fluids. The results indicate an1.8
11.1% higher energy consumption
in the HEV model, and the same amount higher GHG emissions. This is attributable to
the higher
14 degree of electrification of the PHEV model.1.6 This results in a lower use of the
ICE and the CVT transmission, which correspondingly demands less coolant, lubrication,
Energy Consumption (GJ/car)

1.4can employ regenerative breaking

GHG emissions (tonnes/car)

and 12
transmission fluid. Additionally, the PHEV model
to a higher extent than the HEV model. This reduces the demand for brake fluids used to
1.2
operate
10 the hydraulically operated brake discs.
1
8 Energy consumption
0.8 GHG emissions
6
0.6
4
0.4
2 0.2
 Figure 9 plots the energy consumption and GHG emissions associated with the man-
ufacturing of vehicle batteries. The results indicate a large disparity in the energy con-
sumption (by 3.3 times) and GHG emissions (by 3.2 times) between the PHEV and HEV
Sustainability model. This is attributed to the much larger lithium-ion battery employed on the PHEV
2023, 15, 11027 15 of 23

model, at 154 kg compared to 39 kg in the HEV model.

16 1.8

14 1.6
Energy Consumption (GJ/car)

1.4

GHG emissions (tonnes/car)

12
1.2
10
1
8 Energy consumption
0.8 GHG emissions
6
0.6
4
0.4
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 22
2 0.2

0 0
the higher degree of electrification of the PHEV model. This results in a lower use of the
ICE and thePHEV HEV
CVT transmission, which correspondingly demands less coolant, lubrication,
and transmission fluid. Additionally, the PHEV model can employ regenerative breaking
Figure 9. Energy Figure
consumption to a higher
and GHGextent than the
emissions HEV model.with
associated This reduces the demand forof brake fluids used to
9. Energy consumption and GHG emissions associated withthe
the manufacturing vehicle
manufacturing of vehicle batteries.
batteries. operate the hydraulically operated brake discs.

5 0.35
3.2.2. Vehicle Fluid Manufacturing
4.5
Figure 10 plots the
4
energy consumption and GHG emissions associated0.3with the
Energy Consumption (GJ/car)

manufacture of vehicle fluids. The results indicate an 11.1% higher energy consumption

GHG emissions (tonne/car)

3.5 0.25
in the HEV model, and the same amount higher GHG emissions. This is attributable to
3
0.2
2.5
0.15
2

1.5 0.1
1
0.05
0.5
0 0
HEV PHEV

Machine Fluid Brake Fluid Transmission Fluid Coolant

Wiper Fluid Fuel Additives GHG emissions

Figure 10. Energy consumption and GHG emissions associated with the manufacturing of vehicle
Figure 10. Energy consumption and GHG emissions associated with the manufacturing of vehicle fluids.
fluids.
3.2.3. Vehicle Assembly
3.2.3. Vehicle Assembly
The assembly process assembles all vehicle components and subcomponents. It
The assembly process assembles all vehicle components and subcomponents. It con-
consists of multiple processes that consume energy directly, such as heating, painting,
sists of multiple processes that consume energy directly, such as heating, painting, weld-
welding, materialing,handling, electrical
material handling, machinery,
electrical and processes
machinery, thatthat
and processes consume
consume energy
energy indi-
indirectly, such rectly,
as HVAC and lighting (of the factory floor). Figure 11 presents the
such as HVAC and lighting (of the factory floor). Figure 11 presents energy
the energy
consumption and GHG emissions
consumption and GHG from the assembly
emissions from theprocess.
assemblyThe results
process. Theindicate an 8% an 8%
results indicate
disparity between the HEV
disparity and PHEV
between the HEV models. The slightly
and PHEV higher
models. The energy
slightly consumption
higher of
energy consumption
the PHEV model ofis attributed
the to aishigher
PHEV model vehicle
attributed mass. vehicle mass.
to a higher
 30 3.5

Sustainability 2023, 15, 11027 16 of 23

Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 22
3
25

Energy Consumption (GJ/car)

Emissions (tonnes/car)
30 2.53.5
20

25 23
15

Energy Consumption (GJ/car)

(tonnes/car)
2.5
20 1.5

10 2

GHG
15 1

GHG Emissions
1.5
5 10 0.5
1

5
0 0 0.5
HEV PHEV
0 0
painting HVAC Heating Handling
HEV welding Heating
PHEV GHG emissions

painting HVAC Heating Handling welding Heating GHG emissions

Figure 11. Energy consumption and GHG emissions associated with vehicle assembly.
Figure 11. Energy consumption and GHG emissions associated with vehicle assembly.
Figure 11. Energy consumption and GHG emissions associated with vehicle assembly.
3.2.4. Transportation to 4S Shops
3.2.4. Transportation 3.2.4. Transportation to 4S Shops
to 4S Shops
The transportation of a fully manufactured car to 4S shops is assumed to be achieved
The transportation
The transportation ofof
a fully manufactured
a fully manufactured car tocar
4Sto
shops
4S is assumed
shops to be achieved
is assumed to be of
achieved
by the use of an articulated heavy-duty car transporting truck, with a travel
by the use of an articulated heavy-duty car transporting truck, with a travel distance of
distance
by
1500 km. According the use of an
toAccording articulated
GREET, the heavy-duty
specific car transporting truck, with a travel distance of
1500 km. to GREET, the energy consumption
specific energy consumption andand GHGGHGemissions as-
emissions as-
1500 km. According to GREET, the specific energy consumption and GHG emissions
sociated with the transportation
sociated of by caroftransporting
with the transportation articulated
by car transporting trucks
articulated trucksare
are4.95 MJ/kg
4.95 MJ/kg
associated
and 510
with
g/kg,
the transportation
respectively. Based on
of by assumptions,
these
car transportingthe
articulated
calculated
trucks
energy
are 4.95 MJ/kg
consump-
and 510 g/kg, respectively.
and
Based on these assumptions, the calculated energy consump-
tion510
andg/kg,
GHG respectively.
emissions areBased on these
presented assumptions,
in Figure the calculated
12. The results indicate aenergy consumption
small (1.7%)
tion and GHGand emissions
GHG are presented
emissions are in Figure
presented in 12. 12.
Figure The Theresults
results indicate
indicate asmall
a small (1.7%)
(1.7%) disparity
disparity in energy consumption and GHG emissions between the two models.
disparity in energy consumption and GHG emissions between
in energy consumption and GHG emissions between the two models. the two models.
10 0.9
10 9 0.9
0.8
9 8 0.8 0.7
Energy Consumption (GJ/Car)

GHG Emissions (tonnes/car)

8 7
0.7 0.6
Energy Consumption (GJ/Car)

GHG Emissions (tonnes/car)

6
7 0.5
5 0.6 Energy Consumption
6 0.4 GHG Emissions
4 0.5
5 0.3 Energy Consumption
3
0.4 0.2 GHG Emissions
4 2

1 0.3 0.1
3
0 0
2 0.2
HEV PHEV

1 0.1
Figure 12. Energy consumption and GHG emissions associated with transportation to 4S shops.

0 0
HEV PHEV

Figure 12. Energy consumption

Figure 12. Energyand GHG emissions
consumption and GHGassociated
emissions with transportation
associated to 4S shops.
with transportation to 4S shops.
 Sustainability 2023, 15, 11027 17 of 23

3.2.5. Maintenance
Vehicle maintenance is defined as the replacement of vehicle fluids and tires. Assuming
normal driving conditions, tire replacement is assumed to occur every 60,000 km [20]. This
results in three replacements during the vehicle’s full lifecycle. Lubrication oil requires
2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW changing every 6000 km, accounting to a total of 39 changes. Wiper and 17 of 22 fluids
brake
require two changes, and transmission fluid require three changes within the full lifecycle.
According to Toyota, the lithium-ion batteries do not require replacement or maintenance
during the entire lifecycle of a car. This claim was independently verified by Gaines
3.2.5. Maintenance
et al. [21]. Therefore, lithium-ion batteries are assumed as maintenance/replacement free.
Vehicle maintenance is defined asthe
From these assumptions, theenergy
replacement of vehicle
consumption fluids
and GHG and tires.
emissions Assum-with the
associated
ing normal driving conditions,
maintenance stagetire
werereplacement
calculated, asis presented
assumedin toFigure
occur13.
every
The60,000
results km [20].an 11.3%
indicate
disparity
This results in three in energy consumption,
replacements during theand an 8.64%full
vehicle’s disparity in GHG
lifecycle. emissions,oil
Lubrication favouring
re- the
PHEV model. This is attributed to a higher degree of electrification,
quires changing every 6000 km, accounting to a total of 39 changes. Wiper and brake fluids resulting in a lesser
reliance
require two changes, on transmission
and lubrication oil fluid
and transmission
require three fluid.
changes within the full lifecycle.
According to Toyota, the lithium-ion batteries do not require replacement or maintenance
3.2.6. End-of-Life
during the entire lifecycle of a car. This claim was independently verified by Gaines et al.
The EOL stage of the vehicle lifecycle compromises crushing and battery recycling.
[21]. Therefore, The
lithium-ion batteries are
energy consumption assumed
and as maintenance/replacement
GHG emission intensity associated with EOLfree. isFrom
summarised
these assumptions, the energy consumption and GHG emissions associated
in Table 8. Using Equation (1), the total energy consumption and GHG emissions with the during the
maintenance stageEOL were calculated,
stage were as This
calculated. presented in Figure
is presented 13. 14.
in Figure TheTheresults
resultsindicate an
show a considerable
11.3% disparitydisparity
in energy consumption,
in energy and an
consumption (3.38.64%
times)disparity
and GHG in GHG emissions,
emissions fa-
(3 times) between the
PHEV and HEV model. This disparity is owed partly to the higher
vouring the PHEV model. This is attributed to a higher degree of electrification, resulting vehicular mass of the
PHEV
in a lesser reliance on model, but mostly
lubrication from
oil and the much higher
transmission fluid.battery mass.

25 2

1.8
Energy Consumption (GJ/car)

20 1.6
GHG emissions (tons/car)

1.4

15 1.2

1 Energy Consumption

10 0.8 GHG emissions

0.6

5 0.4

0.2

0 0
HEV PHEV
.
Figure 13. EnergyFigure
consumption and
13. Energy GHG emissions
consumption associated
and GHG emissionswith vehiclewith
associated maintenance.
vehicle maintenance.

3.2.6. End-of-Life
Table 8. Specific energy consumption and GHG emissions. Data obtained from GREET.
The EOL stage of the vehicle lifecycle compromises crushing
Body and battery
Crushing recycling.
Battery Retraction
The energy consumption and GHG emission intensity
Specific Energy Consumption (MJ/kg)
associated
1.12
with EOL is summarised
84.6
in Table 8. Using Equation (1), the total energy consumption and GHG emissions during
Specific GHG Emissions (g/kg) 100 8212
the EOL stage were calculated. This is presented in Figure 14. The results show a consid-
erable disparity in energy consumption (3.3 times) and GHG emissions (3 times) between
the PHEV and HEV model. This disparity is owed partly to the higher vehicular mass of
the PHEV model, but mostly from the much higher battery mass.

Table 8. Specific energy consumption and GHG emissions. Data obtained from GREET.

Body Crushing Battery Retraction

Sustainability 2023, 15, 11027 18 of 23
Sustainability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 22

16 1.8
1.6
Energy Consumption (GJ/car)
14

GHG Emissions (tonnes/car)

12 1.4
1.2
10
1
8
0.8
6
0.6
4 0.4
2 0.2
0 0
HEV PHEV

Body Chrushing Battery Recycling GHG emissions

Figure 14. Energy Consumption and GHG emissions associated with the vehicle’s EOL.
Figure 14. Energy Consumption and GHG emissions associated with the vehicle’s EOL.
3.2.7.
3.2.7. SummaryofofVehicle
Summary Vehicle Lifecycle
Lifecycle
Figure 15 consolidates all the results from the vehicle lifecycle phase to yield the en-
Figure 15 consolidates all the results from the vehicle lifecycle phase to yield the energy
ergy consumption and GHG emissions. The results indicate the PHEV model consumes
consumption and GHG emissions. The results indicate the PHEV model consumes 3.2%
3.2% more energy, and emits 5.6% more GHG emissions than the HEV model throughout
more the energy, and emits
vehicle lifecycle 5.6%
phase. more
This GHGcan
disparity emissions thanminor,
be considered the HEV model
given large throughout
disparities the
vehicle lifecycle phase. This disparity can be considered minor,
in energy consumption and GHG emissions during battery manufacturing and given large disparities
EOL in
energy consumption and GHG emissions during battery manufacturing and
stages of the vehicle lifecycle. This can be owed to mitigating design strategies employedEOL stages
of the
on thevehicle
PHEV lifecycle. This can
models, which usebe owed
lower to mitigating
amounts design
(by mass) strategies employed
of energy-intensive materialson the
PHEV suchmodels, which
as steel, cast iron,use lower amounts
aluminium, (by mass)
magnesium, of Other
and PET. energy-intensive materials
mitigating factors includesuch as
Sustainability 2023, lower
15, x FOR mechanical
PEER REVIEW maintenance and fluid requirements, owing to higher degree
steel, cast iron, aluminium, magnesium, and PET. Other mitigating factors include lower of electri- 19 of 22
fication.
mechanical maintenance and fluid requirements, owing to higher degree of electrification.

250 25

200 20
Energy Consumption (GJ/car)

GHG Emissions (tonnes/car)

150 15

100 10

50 5

0 0
HEV PHEV

Vehicular Component Manufacturing Battery Manufacturing

Fluid Manufacturing Assembly
Transportation Maintenance
EOL GHG Emissions

Figure 15. Energy consumption and GHG emissions during vehicle lifecycle.
Figure 15. Energy consumption and GHG emissions during vehicle lifecycle.
3.3. Cradle-to-Grave Lifecycle
Consolidating the vehicle and fuel lifecycle phases presented prior, the total cradle-
to-grave lifecycle was obtained, presented in Figure 16. The results indicate that most of
the energy is consumed at the fuel cycle phase of the lifecycle, accounting for 87 and 77%
of total cradle-to-grave energy consumption within the HEV and PHEV models, respec-
nability 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 22
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11027 19 of 23

These findings suggest that increased drivetrain electrification results in a reduction

in environmental3.3. Cradle-to-Grave
impact. This trend Lifecycle
contradicts those reported by Gal et al. [10], Qinyu et
al. [6], Pipitone et Consolidating
al. [11], and Petrauskiene et al.fuel
the vehicle and [12]. This reversal
lifecycle phases may be attributed
presented prior, thetototal cradle-to-
differences ingrave lifecycle
data sets, LCAwas obtained,
subject matter,presented
ranges ofinimpactFigurecategories,
16. The results
as wellindicate
as tech- that most of the
energy is consumed
nological advancements in battery at the
andfuel cycle phase
vehicular of the lifecycle,
manufacturing, accounting
particularly for 87 and 77% of
battery
manufacturing total
andcradle-to-grave energy consumption
recycling. Consequently, within the
the total lifecycle HEV and PHEV
environmental models,
impact of respectively.
It is alsoto
Evs can be expected clear
have that the disparity
decreases in energy
over the consumption
last decade. Additionalis at factors
the highest
suchinasthe WTW fuel
cycle phase,
improved vehicular with a 33%
technology, disparity
resulting in fuel consumption
in improved fuel economy, between
changesthe inHEV and PHEV model.
energy
mixes with a higher share of non-fossil-fuel based energy sources, and lower use of en-model during
This is attributed to significantly lower gasoline consumption of the PHEV
ergy-incentiveusage.
materials On the
can other hand, contribute
collectively the disparity in energy consumption
to decreasing the environmental at theim- vehicle lifecycle
pact of Evs. Inphase is comparatively
comparison to the LCAsmall,
of HEVsat 3.2%.
and PHEVsIt can reported
thus be concluded
by Samaras that a small
et al. [4] increase in
in 2008, in thisenergy
study, consumption
the disparity at in
thetotal
vehicle lifecycle
lifecycle GHG phase, mostly
between attributed
the to the is
vehicle types manufacturing
and recycling of a larger battery, can result in a substantial
much greater. In addition to differences in datasets, the scope of the LCA reported in this reduction in the overall cradle-to-
grave energy consumption. However, it should be noted
study is much broader, by encompassing notable lifecycle stages (such as gasoline pro- that these finding are based on the
average global energy mix, where coal-powered power
duction), which were not accounted for in the aforementioned publication. Furthermore, generation prevails. For this reason,
the thorough increased
and transparentenergybreakdown
consumption leads consumption
energy to a correspondingand GHG increase in GHG
emission emissions, as the
calcu-
lations withinincreased
the presenteddemand is often
study, met by the
particularly in fossil-fuel
vehicle and based power
battery station. By increasing the
manufacturing,
makes the methodology adopted here more comprehensive and adaptable formix,
amount of renewable, non-fossil-fuel-based sources in the energy future increased
re- demands
for electricity, either for the recharging of batteries or
searchers in their quest to obtain a thorough understanding of the environmental impact for manufacturing processes, can be
met without
of various vehicle technologies. a directly proportional increase in GHG emissions.

1200 60

1000 50
Energy Consumption (GJ/car)

GHG Emissions (tonnes/car)

800 40

600 30

400 20

200 10

0 0
HEV PHEV

Fuel Cycle Vehicle Cycle GHG Emissions

Figure 16. Cradle-to-grave lifecycle energy consumption and GHG emission.

Figure 16. Cradle-to-grave lifecycle energy consumption and GHG emission.

4. Conclusions Conversely, the disparity in energy consumption and GHG emissions during the
lifecycle
At present, phaseaisgap
there exists relatively minor, at
in knowledge 3.2% and the
concerning 5.6%, respectively. impact
environmental A marginal
of increase in
a contemporary energy consumption
real-world HEV and during the lifecycle
PHEVs, phase,the
throughout mainly dueof
entirety totheir
the production
lifecycles. and recycling
The presentedofresearch
a larger battery, can yield
study bridges a substantially
this reduced
gap by presenting environmental impact
a comprehensive within the whole
cradle-to-
cradle-to-grave lifecycle.
grave LCA comparison between Toyota Prius XW50 HEV and PHEV. The LCA investiga-
tion systematicallyThese findings
quantified thesuggest
energythat increased drivetrain
consumption and GHGelectrification results
emissions across allin a reduction
in environmental
stages of the vehicle’s impact.
lifecycle: from This trend
resource contradicts
extraction to EOL. those
Fromreported by Gal et al. [10], Qinyu
this investigation,
the following et al. [6], conclusions
original Pipitone et al. [11],
were and Petrauskiene et al. [12]. This reversal may be attributed
attained:
to differences in data sets, LCA subject matter, ranges of impact categories, as well as
(1) The WTW fuel cycle phase is the largest contributor to the overall cradle-to-grave
technological advancements in battery and vehicular manufacturing, particularly battery
lifecycle energy consumption, accounting for 87% and 77% within the HEV and
manufacturing and recycling. Consequently, the total lifecycle environmental impact of
PHEV models, respectively. This can be attributed to the substantial energy intensity
Evs can be expected to have decreases over the last decade. Additional factors such as
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11027 20 of 23

improved vehicular technology, resulting in improved fuel economy, changes in energy

mixes with a higher share of non-fossil-fuel based energy sources, and lower use of energy-
incentive materials can collectively contribute to decreasing the environmental impact
of Evs. In comparison to the LCA of HEVs and PHEVs reported by Samaras et al. [4] in
2008, in this study, the disparity in total lifecycle GHG between the vehicle types is much
greater. In addition to differences in datasets, the scope of the LCA reported in this study
is much broader, by encompassing notable lifecycle stages (such as gasoline production),
which were not accounted for in the aforementioned publication. Furthermore, the thor-
ough and transparent breakdown energy consumption and GHG emission calculations
within the presented study, particularly in vehicle and battery manufacturing, makes the
methodology adopted here more comprehensive and adaptable for future researchers in
their quest to obtain a thorough understanding of the environmental impact of various
vehicle technologies.

4. Conclusions
At present, there exists a gap in knowledge concerning the environmental impact of a
contemporary real-world HEV and PHEVs, throughout the entirety of their lifecycles. The
presented research study bridges this gap by presenting a comprehensive cradle-to-grave
LCA comparison between Toyota Prius XW50 HEV and PHEV. The LCA investigation
systematically quantified the energy consumption and GHG emissions across all stages
of the vehicle’s lifecycle: from resource extraction to EOL. From this investigation, the
following original conclusions were attained:
(1) The WTW fuel cycle phase is the largest contributor to the overall cradle-to-grave
lifecycle energy consumption, accounting for 87% and 77% within the HEV and PHEV
models, respectively. This can be attributed to the substantial energy intensity of
petroleum extraction and refinement, particularly within the context of a fossil-fuel
(primarily coal)-dominated energy mix. Increasing the proportion of renewable energy
sources in the energy mix can potentially reduce energy consumption, as well as GHG
emissions within the fuel cycle phase. This, in turn, would lead to a corresponding
reduction in the overall environmental impact.
(2) Throughout the PTW fuel cycle phase, the PHEV model demonstrates a 14.7% reduc-
tion in energy consumption, and a 25% reduction in GHG emissions compared to the
HEV model. This is attributed to a higher degree of drivetrain electrification, which
reduces reliance on the ICE.
(3) Throughout the vehicle lifecycle phase, the PHEV model exhibits a slight (3.2%)
increase in energy consumption, and a corresponding rise (5.6%) in GHG emissions,
compared to the HEV model. This disparity can partially be attributed to the higher
vehicle mass of the PHEV, while the main contributing factors are associated with the
manufacturing and recycling of a larger capacity lithium-ion battery. However, this
discrepancy is modest when considering the overall environmental impact observed
throughout the entire lifecycle.
(4) Despite having a higher vehicular mass, the PHEV model consumes less energy and
emits fewer GHG emissions during vehicle component manufacturing (not counting
fluids and batteries). This is due to the reduced usage of energy-intensive materials,
such as magnesium, alumnium, rubber, and polymers.
(5) Overall, the PHEV model demonstrates a significant reduction of 29.6% in total
lifecycle energy consumption and a 17.5% decrease in GHG emissions compared to the
HEV model. This is mostly attributed to the higher degree of drivetrain electrification,
resulting in superior fuel economy during the usage phase of the lifecycle. This
reduces the demand for gasoline production within the energy-intensive upstream
WTP fuel cycle phase of the lifecycle.
(6) Based on the lower overall lifecycle energy consumption and GHG emissions, it can
be concluded that the PHEV displays a considerably lower environmental impact
than the HEV model.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11027 21 of 23

(7) The cradle-to-grave LCA methodology employed in this study has the capability
to evaluate and compare the environmental implications associated with a diverse
range of drivetrain electrification options, including conventional internal combustion
engine vehicles (ICEVs), battery electric vehicles (BEVs), and fuel cell vehicles (FCVs).
Additionally, including diesel- and bio-fuel-powered HEVs and PHEVs allows for
meaningful assessments of their environmental impact in comparison to gasoline-
powered HEVs/PHEVs. Future LCAs could incorporate material input inventories of
both virgin and recycled materials to facilitate a comprehensive assessment of their
respective environmental impacts.
The comprehensive and transparent methodology of the LCA can be easily adopted by
future researchers. The contribution of the presented study has far-reaching implications
within various domains. Within the realms of vehicular design, the identification of envi-
ronmental impact hotspots can aid in design and material selection optimisation, aimed at
improving environmental performance. Furthermore, supply chains, material selection and
sourcing optimisation can be guided by these insights to minimise environmental burden.

Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, E.P.; methodology, E.P.; validation, S.R. and E.P.; formal
analysis, S.R. and E.P.; investigation, S.R. and E.P.; data curation, S.R. and E.P.; resources, E.P.; writing—
original draft, S.R. and E.P.; writing—review and editing, S.R. and E.P.; supervision, E.P.; project
administration, E.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors gratefully acknowledge the foundational work carried out by Zijing
Chen during her master’s degree thesis.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Energy Institute. Transport Sector Accounts for Almost 30% of All Energy Consumption Globally. Available online:
https://www.energyinst.org/exploring-energy/topic/transport#:~:text=Transport%20sector%20accounts%20for%20almost,
in%20our%20society%20and%20economy (accessed on 21 May 2023).
2. International Energy Agency. Global EV Outlook 2022; IEA: Paris, France, 2022.
3. European Environment Agency. Electric Vehicles from Life Cycle and Circular Economy Perspectives; European Environment Agency:
Copenhagen, Denmark, 2018.
4. Samaras, C.; Meisterling, K. Life Cycle Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles: Implications for
Policy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 3170–3176. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Wang, D.; Zamel, N.; Jiao, K. Life Cycle Analysis of Internal Combustion Engine, Electric and Fuel Cell Vehicles for China. Energy
2013, 59, 402–412. [CrossRef]
6. Qiao, Q.; Zhao, F.; Liu, Z.; Jiang, S.; Hao, H. Cradle-to-grate greenhouse gas emissions of battery electric and internal combustion
engine vehicles in China. Appl. Energy 2017, 204, 1399–1411. [CrossRef]
7. Holdway, A.R.; Williams, A.R.; Inderwildi, O.R.; King, D.A. Indirect emissions from electric vehicles: Emissions from electricity
generation. Energy Environ. Sci. 2010, 3, 1813–2020. [CrossRef]
8. Elgowainy, A.; Burnham, A.; Wang, M.; Molburg, J.; Rousseau, A. Well-to-Wheels Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis
of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles; Argonne National Laboratories: Lemont, IL, USA, 2009.
9. Wang, R.; Song, Y.; Xu, H.; Li, Y.; Liu, J. Life Cycle Assessment of Energy Consumption and CO2 Emissions from HEV, PHEV, and
BEV for China in the Past, Present and Future. Energies 2022, 15, 6853. [CrossRef]
10. Gao, L.; Winfield, Z.C. Life Cycle Assessment of Environmental and Economic Impacts of Advanced Vehicles. Energies 2012, 5,
605–620. [CrossRef]
11. Pipitone, E.; Caltabellotta, S.; Occhipinti, L. A Life Cycle Environmental Impact Comparison between Traditional, Hybrid, and
Electric Vehicles in the European Context. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10992. [CrossRef]
12. Petrauskien, K.; Galinis, A.; Kliaugaite, D.; Dvarioniene, J. Comparative Environmental Life Cycle and Cost Assessment of
Electric, Hybrid, and Conventional Vehicles in Lithuania. Sustainability 2021, 13, 957. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11027 22 of 23

13. Car Info. Specifications for Toyota Prius XW50. 2023. Available online: https://www.car.info/en-se/toyota/prius/4th-
generation-7122916/specs (accessed on 6 May 2023).
14. Argonne National Laboratory. Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation Model v1.3.0.13520; Argonne
National Laboratory: Lemont, IL, USA, 2019.
15. Argonne National Laboratory. Summary of Expansions and Updates in GREET 2019. 2019. Available online: https://publications.
anl.gov/anlpubs/2019/10/156441.pdf (accessed on 14 May 2023).
16. Burnham, A.; Wang, M.; Wu, Y. Development and Applications of GREET 2.7—The Transportation Vehicle-Cycle Model; Argonne
National Laboratory: Lemont, IL, USA, 2006.
17. Ultimate Specs. Toyota Prius XW50 1.8 Hybrid Specs. Available online: https://www.ultimatespecs.com/car-specs/Toyota/1112
18/Toyota-Prius-(XW50)-18-Hybrid.html (accessed on 5 May 2023).
18. United Enviromental Protection Agency. New Fuel Economy and Enviroment Lables for a New Generation of Vehicles. 2011.
Available online: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyNET.exe/P100BAV0.TXT?ZyActionD=ZyDocument&Client=EPA&Index=2011
+Thru+2015&Docs=&Query=&Time=&EndTime=&SearchMethod=1&TocRestrict=n&Toc=&TocEntry=&Qfield=&QfieldYear=
&QfieldMonth=&QfieldDay=&IntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=0&XmlQuery= (accessed on 10 May 2023).
19. Mayyas, A.; Omar, M.; Hayajneh, M.; Mayyas, A.R. Vehicle’s Lightweight Design vs. Electrification from Life Cycle Assessment
Perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 167, 687–701. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11027 23 of 23

20. Nemry, F.; Leduc, G.; Munoz, A. Plug-in Hybrid and Battery-Electric Vehicles: State of the Research and Development and Comparative
Analysis of Energy and Cost Efficiency; JRC European Comission: Seville, Spain, 2009.
21. Gaines, L.; Singh, M. Energy and Environmental Impacts of Electric Vehicle Battery Production and Recycling; SAE International:
Warrendale, PA, USA, 1995.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.