The Journal of Energy and Development

THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY
AND DEVELOPMENT
Ghassan Tashtoush, Osama Saadeh,

and Ashraf Dawagreh,
“Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of
Using Electric Vehicles Compared to
Conventional Internal Combustion Vehicles:
A Case Study in Jordan,”
Volume 48, Number 1
Copyright 2023
ENVIRONMENTAL LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF
USING ELECTRIC VEHICLES COMPARED TO
CONVENTIONAL INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE
VEHICLES: A CASE STUDY IN JORDAN
Ghassan Tashtoush, Osama Saadeh, AND Ashraf Dawagreh*
Introduction
D ue to the depletion of fossil resources and climate change, electric vehicles

(EVs) have received increased global interest, and as a result, the promotion
*Ghassan Tashtoush is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Jordan University of Science and

Technology. Dr. Tashtoush earned his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from the University of
Kentucky (Lexington, KY) and his M.S. and B.S. in the same field from Jordan University of Science
and Technology. The author’s fields of specialization include thermo-fluid and power engineering,
thermal power and renewable energy, energy efficiency and auditing, air pollution measurement and
control, internal combustion engines and emission analysis, refrigeration, combustion, quality control,
and manufacturing and industrial management and consultations. Some of Dr. Tashtoush’s publications
have appeared in the Journal of Engineering and Applied Science, International Journal of Ambient
Energy, and Energy Procedia, among other respected journals.
Osama Saadeh earned both his M.Sc. and Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering from the University of
Arkansas (USA) and B.Sc. in the same field from Jordan University of Science and Technology. He is
currently with the Energy Engineering Department at the German Jordan University and prior to
that was in the Department of Electrical Engineering at Jordan University of Science and Technology
(2011-2017). His areas of research include power electronics with an emphasis on modeling and
simulation, power semiconductor devices, renewable energy interfaces, and power system protection
and quality. Dr. Saadeh is a professional engineer and senior member of IEEE and Eta Kappa Nu.
Ashraf Dawagreh received his M.S. in Renewable Energy and Sustainable Development and B.S. in
Mechanical Engineering/Thermal Power at Jordan University of Science and Technology. The author’s
(continued)
The Journal of Energy and Development, Vol. 48, Nos. 1-2

Copyright # 2023 by the International Research Center for Energy and Economic Development
(ICEED). All rights reserved.
51
52 THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT
and prioritization of EVs has been placed on the political agendas in various coun-
tries. Statistics show that the total number of electric cars in the world has reached
3 million in 2017, and is expected to reach 125 million by the end of 2030,1 as the
political aspirations continue to rise to meet climate goals and other sustainability
targets. However, since there is a difference between EVs and internal combustion
engine vehicles (ICEVs) in many regards including local emissions, driving range,
and electric energy demand, there is a need to assess the effects of the growing
fleet of EVs. Our study is focusing on this trend of growth in EV adoption for the
country of Jordan.
Jordan is a non-oil producer country that imports most of its energy needs, so
reducing energy consumption is one of the most important challenges facing the
nation. This is especially true for the transportation sector, which has been greatly
affected by the economic and technological changes that the country has witnessed
over the past three decades. For example, the number of road vehicles in Jordan
rose by almost 900% during the past 25 years.2 The enormous increase in the num-
ber of operating vehicles has contributed to a significant increase in the local
energy demand, and an increasing amount of damage to the natural environment
because of polluting emissions. As a result, there has been a continuous search for
alternatives to conventional vehicles. One such alternative, which has been increas-
ingly promoted by the government, is EVs.
The lifetime of the vehicle depends mainly on two factors: the periodic mainte-
nance of the vehicle and the drivers’ driving behaviors. Thus, there is no official
numbers for a specific EV lifetime. However, when looking at the manufacturer’s
warranty, it will range from 130,000 kilometers (km) to 200,000 km depending on
the manufacturer,3 since after this period the faults in the main parts of the car
increase. In Jordan, due to the high tax rates on cars that may reach 90% of the
import price, car owners typically invest in periodic maintenance rather than buy-
ing a new car, which increases the vehicles’ lifetime to over 350,000 km.
EVs are automobiles that are powered partially or entirely by electricity. There
are many types of EVs, which include: (1) Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) that
are powered entirely by electricity; (2) Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs)
that have electric batteries that can be charged using an external charger and use
conventional fuel for a secondary motor; (3) Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEVs) that
are powered by both petrol/diesel and electricity as they begin by using the electric
motor and then uses the ICE at higher speeds; and (4) Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles
research fields include thermal power and renewable energy (solar, biofuels, and wind), energy
efficiency auditing and management, and environmental management. The author’s master thesis
focused on the environmental life cycle of electric vehicles versus conventional vehicles. The author
was the editor of the Jordanian Ministry of Environment’s Dealing with Car Components at the End of
the Car’s Life in Jordan.
JORDAN: ELECTRIC VS. CONVENTIONAL VEHICLES 53
(FCEVs) that have a fuel cell stack which uses hydrogen to create the electricity
needed to power the vehicle (Appendix table 1 has the nomenclature).
On the one hand, the well-to-wheel (WTW) analysis for EVs, which focuses on
the life cycle of energy provided to propel the vehicle such as gasoline and electric-
ity, has been studied by many researchers. For instance, X. Liu et al. investigated
hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles fueled by hydrogen from a fossil-based produc-
tion pathway and ICEVs in term of energy use and GHG emissions during the
WTW phase.4 Their results showed that hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles have a
5% to 33% lower WTW energy use and a 15% to 45% lower WTW GHG emis-
sions. S. Ehrenberger et al. conducted a study to assess the influence of the increas-
ing number of EVs on a WTW basis in five countries (Germany, United States,
China, Japan, and Norway) in terms of GHG emissions using a number of para-
meters including activity, fleet composition, efficiency, and fuel production in each
country.5 The WTW result was that EVs emit lower GHG emissions in all countries
and the amount of emissions saved in absolute terms depends on both the number of
vehicles in a fleet and the number of kilometers driven. HVs, FCEVs, EVs, and
ICEVs were chosen by S. Kosai et al. to evaluate their respective energy efficiency
during the WTW phase from the perspective of both energy consumption during the
use phase and material structure at the manufacturing phase.6 Then, a predicted
change in vehicle weight and energy use due to a material structural shift caused by
the use of aluminum instead of steel was assessed. C. Onn et al. focused on the envi-
ronmental impact of ICEVs, HEVs, and EVs during their use phase by simulating
their energy consumption (fuel or electricity) and the energy supply chains (WTW)
using a life cycle analysis.7 The electricity mix and use profile on the life cycle
assessments (LCA) of EVs was investigated by R. Faria et al. focusing mainly on
the environmental and economic LCA for conventional and EV technologies.8 Their
research found that a mix with a large contribution from renewable energy sources
does not always translate directly into lower GHG emissions for EVs due to the
high variability of these sources. B. Singh and A. Stromman studied the benefit of
large-scale use of EVs in reducing the global warming potential (GWP) in the Nor-
wegian passenger vehicle transport sector.9 It was found that the benefit is only 3%
to 15% for the EVs scenarios, when the complete life cycle is considered.
On the other hand, the cradle-to-grave analysis for EVs, which is from raw mate-
rial processing to the disposal phase, was the subject of different studies. For exam-
ple, D. Korol et al. for Poland and the Czech Republic evaluated the environmental
impact of EVs compared to ICEVs.10 They focused on either renewable or fossil
fuel-based energy sources, which are used to recharge the EVs. Due to the use of
hard coal and lignite as the primary energy sources for the production of electricity,
the results showed that Poland had a greater environmental burden than the Czech
Republic, and that the use of renewable sources to charge the EV batteries contri-
butes significantly to the reduction of GHG emissions, fossil fuels depletion, particu-
late matter formation, and terrestrial acidification. F. Del Pero et al. investigated
EVs and ICEVs in Italy based on a wide range of impact categories on both health
and human ecosystems.11 They found that due to the EVs lack of exhaust gas emis-
sions while in operation, a significant impact reduction in terms of climate change is
feasible. However, the BEV manufacturing is more demanding than ICEV produc-
tion, particularly due to the high energy, metal, and chemical demands of some elec-
tric powertrain components, like the high-voltage battery. C. Tagliaferri et al. for
Europe reported that ICEVs have a higher global warming than BEVs, due to the
greater amount of GHG emissions generated during the use phase.12 Additionally,
they put forth a scenario to predict the environmental impact for a future energy mix
in Europe. Furthermore, two vehicle disposal scenarios were analyzed by these
researchers. The first scenario assumed the vehicle totally to be disposed of inside
Europe and the second was that part of the vehicle was disposed of outside Europe.
In China, the LCA on the power system of ICEVs and two types of EVs—one
powered by nickel cobalt manganese lithium battery and the other lithium-iron fer-
rous phosphate battery—was conducted by A. Yu et al. to evaluate their environ-
mental impacts.13 They found that EVs have a larger impact on the environment
than ICEVs. In addition, the sensitivity analysis was achieved by optimizing the
electric power structure and battery energy density to reduce CO, CO2, and other
contributors to global warming potential.
Another comparative study was undertaken by Y. Bicer and I. Dincer to investi-
gate the human health and environmental impact, including global warming,
human toxicity, and ozone layer depletion, of methanol, hydrogen, and electric
vehicles, with the lifetime of the vehicle assumed to be 150,000 km and the func-
tional unit was 1 km driving distance.14 The result showed that hydrogen driven
vehicles are a more environmentally-benign option with respect to global warming
and ozone layer depletion potentials.
The life cycle CO2 emissions of ICEVs powered by diesel and gasoline and EVs
were estimated by R. Kawamoto et al., who studied China, Japan, Australia, the
United States, and European Union as reference regions for vehicle use.15 Their
results found that EVs showed significantly lower CO2 emissions than ICEVs, except
in Australia where ICEV emissions were lower than BEVs until their end of life due
to coal accounting for 75% of Australia’s electricity generation. A. Nordelof et al.
determined the value of various types of electrified vehicle LCA studies undertaken
by 79 reviewed papers.16 They focused on the goal and scope formulation of all stud-
ies and then categorized them depending on technical and methodological scope.
Other studies discussed and focused on electrification and lightweight vehicle
design to reduce the amount of GHG emissions and to improve fuel economy.
A. Mayyas et al. found that using aluminum in vehicle design has the lowest GHG
emissions and lowest energy consumption compared with steel and magnesium-
based design.17 However, this advantage of being lightweight can also be magni-
fied if it is combined with a properly electrified powertrain. This can be achieved
by a pure battery EV that has a lightweight body design using an aluminum
body-in-white. Additionally, C. Koffler studied the environmental implications of

two light-weight automotive components (Ford Taurus front end bolster and Chev-
rolet Trailblazer/GMC Envoy assist step) using glass-fiber reinforced polymers
(GFRP) instead of steel alloys.18 It was found that the lightweight GFRP compo-
nents outperform their steel counterparts over the full life cycle, mainly due to the
reduced fuel consumption of the vehicle in the use phase.
Several researchers have conducted studies in vehicle-producing countries to
investigate the environmental impacts associated with the vehicle life cycle. In
spite of the fact that Jordan is a non-vehicle producing country, there are many
vehicles imported to Jordan and used on the roads, whether they are EVs or
ICEVs.19 At the end-of-life (EOL) cycle of the vehicles, all components are
recycled according to the regulations applied by the Ministry of Environment.
Therefore, a comprehensive study of different vehicle life cycles is important. In
addition, during the utilization phase of these vehicles, many faults and problems
required routine maintenance. In general, the use phase is the most important phase
of the EV life cycle, due to the approach adopted by the users to charge the battery,
which will reflect the amount of damage to the environment. Due to the lack of
available studies focusing on the environmental impacts of using EVs in Jordan, it
has become necessary to investigate the effect of greater demand for EVs which
has increased the energy demand on the grid by charging their batteries, leading to
increased energy consumption and GHG emissions.
Material and Method
The life cycle assessment (LCA) of EVs is used as a technique to assess the
environmental impacts associated with all stages during the lifetime of the vehicle,
from raw material to the end of the life. The ISO14040 guideline20 is used to
describe the framework of the study as shown in figure 1, including the goal and
scope, the life cycle inventory analysis (LCI), the life cycle impact assessment
(LCIA), and the life cycle interpretation.
The LCA methodology was used in this study and the system boundary was
defined to include all phases of the vehicle lifetime and fuel life cycle. Jordan was
selected as a region for our study considering the electricity generation mix and
vehicle driving conditions. Two different types of vehicle technologies were cho-
sen for assessment: the Nissan Leaf ZE0 with lithium-ion battery as a type of BEV
and the Mitsubishi Lancer EX as an ICEV powered by gasoline. These vehicles
were comparatively analyzed due to the fact that these two cars are more common
in the Jordanian car market and their relative equivalence to one another. Only pas-
senger vehicles with five seats were investigated in this study; all other vehicles
are excluded. Table 1 explains the specification for both vehicles and figure 2
shows the electricity generation mix in Jordan as of 2020.
Figure 1
THE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT (LCA) FRAMEWORK
Source: G. Rebitzer et al., “Life Cycle Assessment Part 1: Framework, Goal and Scope Definition,
Inventory Analysis, and Applications,” Environment International, vol. 30, no. 5 (2004), pp. 701–20.
A one-kilometer driving distance is used in the analysis to calculate GHG

emissions (presented as gCO2eq km21) and energy consumption (presented as
MJ km21) with the assumption that the lifetime for both vehicles is 150,000 km to
facilitate comparison with other studies.21 In addition, the sensitivity analysis has
been utilized for cases where vehicle lifetimes are 250,000 km and 350,000 km.
The GHG emissions and energy consumption for inflow and outflow was consid-
ered at each stage of the life cycle.
Table 1
THE KEY PARAMETERS OF THE REPRESENTATIVE VEHICLES
Nissan Leaf ZE0 Mitsubishi Lancer EX
Fuel type electricity gasoline
Battery/engine capacity 24 kWh 1.6 L
Horsepower 107 hp/80 kW 115 hp/86 kW
Curb weight 1475 kg 1225 kg
Gross vehicle weight 1945 kg 1750 kg
Fuel efficiency - 0.073 L km-1
Electricity consumption 0.17 kWh km-1 -
Source: Compiled by authors from Nissan Leaf ZE0, car specifications & performance data review,
available at https://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/2015/2604815/nissan_leaf.html, and Mitsubishi
Lancer EX specifications available at https://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/en/showroom/lancer/
specifications/.
Figure 2
ELECTRICITY GENERATION MIX IN JORDAN, 2020
Source: National Electric Power Company (Nepco), 2020 Annual Report of National Electric Power
(Amman: Nepco, 2020).
System Boundary: The system boundary of our study was defined to include all
processes linked to the vehicle lifetime, from raw material extraction to the vehicle’s
end-of-life. The fuel life cycle was also considered, the detailed flow diagram for
LCA is shown in figure 3 and figure 4. The data of inventory analysis, which are
used for calculations, came from several sources including the GREET model,22
published articles,23 government websites,24 and communication with vehicle users.
(1) Vehicle life cycle as appears in figure 3 for ICEVs and figure 4 for EVs
includes: raw material production stage; manufacturing and assembly of vehicle
components including vehicle body, battery manufacturing, fluid production, etc.;
transportation of the vehicle from the production plant to the point of use; mainte-
nance stage; and end-of-life stage and recycling materials.
(2) Fuel life cycle (well-to-wheel) refers to the entire process of the fuel/electricity
pathway from the extraction of feedstock to the vehicle being driven including: well-
to-tank stage (WTT) that focuses on the production of gasoline/electricity to the stor-
age of the gasoline/electricity in the vehicle and tank-to-wheel stage (TTW) that
focuses on energy conversion which occurs in the vehicle motor.
The complete life cycle of the vehicle is divided into two main parts: the vehi-
cle life cycle and fuel life cycle. The stages that pass during the vehicle life cycle
are the same for both the EVs and the ICEVs, with the difference being in the pro-
duction stage of the EVs, as appears in figures 3 and 4 . On the other hand, the fuel
life cycle is completely different for both vehicles due to the fact that the processes
to produce the gasoline/electricity are different. The fuel cycle of ICEVs is shown
in figure 3 and includes extraction and transportation of the crude oil to the refining
58
Figure 3
SYSTEM BOUNDARIES FOR A COMPLETE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE VEHICLES (ICEVS)
THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT
Figure 4
SYSTEM BOUNDARIES FOR A COMPLETE LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS OF BATTERY ELECTRIC VEHICLES (EVS)
JORDAN: ELECTRIC VS. CONVENTIONAL VEHICLES
59
site, crude oil refining, fuel distribution to the gas station, and the operation phase
of ICEVs (burning the gasoline in ICE).
As shown in figure 4, the fuel life cycle (well-to-wheel phase) of EVs depends
on the power technologies used to generate the electricity, which are either from
renewable sources or conventional sources. When conventional sources were used
for generation in the well-to-wheel phase of EVs, all information to describe
upstream activities involved in fuel production down to electricity generation was
required and this includes: extraction and transportation of fossil fuels, processing
of fossil fuels, transportation of fuels to the power plant station, power transmis-
sion and distribution, and operations phase of EVs.
The well-to-wheel phases when renewable sources are used for electricity gen-
eration include raw material production and construction of power plant, auxiliary
materials and maintenance during power plant operations, recycling materials at
the end of life, power transmission and distribution, and operations phase of EVs.
Life Cycle Inventory: The life cycle inventory includes all the data necessary
for the raw material, energy requirement, solid waste, atmospheric emissions, and
other releases into the environment depending on the system boundary of the pro-
ject. In this study, the GHG emissions and energy consumption were investigated
to evaluate the amount of damage to the environment during all stages of the life-
time for each type of vehicle that was chosen. The carbon dioxide equivalent
(CO2eq) was used to estimate the amount of GHG emissions based on their global
warming potential by converting these gases to the equivalent amount of carbon
dioxide with the same global warming potential.
Production Phase of EVs and ICEVs: Table 2 shows the amount of steel, cast
iron, aluminum, copper, glass, plastic, and rubber that are the main materials from
which the car components and attachments are made from (excluding batteries),
Table 2
THE MATERIAL COMPONENTS AND THE MASS PERCENTAGE OF EACH VEHICLE
TECHNOLOGY (KG) WITHOUT BATTERY
Nissan Leaf ZE0 Mitsubishi Lancer EX
Material Weight (kg) Material Weight (kg)
Steel 774 Steel 759.2
Cast Iron 23.6 Cast Iron 124.3
Wrought Aluminium 17.7 Wrought Aluminium 23
Cast-Aluminium 66.5 Cast-Aluminium 54.4
Copper/Brass 68.5 Copper/Brass 23
Glass 36.6 Glass 36.2
Plastic 140.5 Plastic 136.3
Rubber 20.2 Rubber 26.6
Others 33.4 Others 25.7
Total Weight 1,181 Total Weight 1,208.7
Table 3
THE MATERIAL COMPONENTS AND THE MASS PERCENTAGE OF EACH BATTERY
TECHNOLOGY USED IN VEHICLES (KG)
Lithium-Ion Battery Lead-Acid Battery
Material Weight (kg) Material Weight (kg)
Active Material 74 Lead 11.25
Graphite/Carbon 46.3 Sulfuric Acid 1.28
Binder 6.3 Water 2.3
Copper 34.5 Plastic 1
Wrought Aluminium 70.12 Fiberglass 0.34
Electrolyte 31.164 Others 0.13
Plastic 5
Steel 1.8
Thermal Insulation 1.42
Coolant: Glycol 12.64
Electronic Parts 10.7
Total Weight 294 Total Weight 16.3
whether EVs or ICEVs, but in different proportions. Table 3 shows the material
components and the mass percentage of each battery technology used in the vehi-
cle (kg). The energy consumption and GHG emissions from material production
and transformation used in the car production were considered, all the data in this
section related to GHG emissions and energy consumption during the production
phase were gathered from GREET 201825 and A. Burnham et al., G. Keoleian
et al., and H. L. Brown et al.26
The part manufacturing and vehicle assembly are included in this study. The
assembly stage is divided into six parts: painting and paint production, air condi-
tioning and lighting, heating, material handling, welding, and compressed air.
The lithium-ion batteries of EVs have received great attention from research-
ers27 in terms of their environmental impacts because the materials that they are
made up of produce large quantities of pollutants and consume significant amounts
of energy during their manufacturing phase due to the fact that lithium-ion batteries
require a complex series of manufacturing processes.
Transportation Phase of EVs and ICEVs: The transportation stage includes
transporting the vehicle from the production plant to the point of use. There are
three cities around the world where the Nissan Leaf is produced: Yokosuka, Kana-
gawa in Japan; Smyrna, Tennessee in the United States; and Sunderland in the
United Kingdom.28 In Jordan, the Nissan Leaf was imported from the United
States so the assumption was that the Nissan Leaf was assembled in the Smyrna
Vehicle Assembly Plant in the United States. On the other hand, the Mitsubishi
Lancer is produced at the Mizushima Plant in Kurashiki, Okayama, Japan, which
is 13,953 km from the Aqaba port. This path is assumed to be covered entirely by
marine freight transportation with a negligible amount of trucking due to the prox-
imity of the production plants to the ocean for both vehicles.
The energy consumption to transport the vehicles by shipping is approximately
0.8 MJ ton21 km21 based on the International Energy Agency’s 2019 data.29
Using the same dataset, the GHG emissions are 34 gCO2eq ton21 km21, which
was used for marine freight transportation.
Maintenance Phase of EVs and ICEVs: The batteries for the EVs are designed
for a long life, but the batteries will lose their capacity over time and eventually be
damaged. The Nissan Leaf manufacturer guarantees the lithium-ion battery used in
the vehicle up to 160,000 km under normal use.30 However, driving patterns, envi-
ronmental factors, and charging behavior significantly affect the lifetime of the bat-
tery. In this research, the assumption of the lithium-ion battery lifetime will be
150,000 km with a lifetime for lead-acid batteries of 50,000 km.
In general, the oil and fluid used in vehicles depends on many factors including
manufacturer, weather temperature, and driving condition. B. Bras and A. Cobert
studied the life cycle of tires and provide an estimate of 68,000 km for the United
States, but we assume that the lifetime of tires is 40,000 km in the case of Jordan
due to poor street conditions.31 As can be seen in table 4, it is assumed that the life-
time of engine oil and tires is 5,000 km and 40,000 km, respectively, with wind-
shield fluid, powertrain coolant, and brake oil being consumed every 12,000 km,
60,000 km, and 60,000 km, respectively. Moreover, it is assumed that the transmis-
sion fluid is replaced only once during the lifetime of the vehicle. All of the above-
mentioned assumptions were based on previous studies and the vehicle users in
Jordan. Finally, we assume that there will be no leakage or malfunction during the
lifetime.
End of the Life Phase of EVs and ICEVs: In Jordan, since 2015, interest has
increased in disposing of older cars over the age of ten years. The Jordanian gov-
ernment has encouraged its citizens to dispose of their older cars and replace them
with modern hybrid ones while reducing customs duties on them. The project
aimed to get rid of end-of-life vehicles, reduce the cost of maintenance for citizens
Table 4
WEIGHT (KG) AND LIFETIME (KM) OF FLUID PER VEHICLE
ICEVs (kg) EVs (kg) Lifetime (km)
Engine Oil 3 0 5,000
Brake Fluid 0.9 0.9 60,000
Transmission Fluid 6 0.8 75,000
Powertrain Coolant 5 0 60,000
Windshield Fluid 2 2 12,000
Source: Data collected by authors based upon Jordanian vehicle ownership.

by providing spare parts, reduce the environmental effects resulting from the older
cars, and reduce energy consumption. The vehicle and the driver license depart-
ment require the engine number and chassis number of the vehicle to be disposed
of, while the rest of the other vehicle parts including engine parts, gearbox, radia-
tor, interior, accessories, etc., are dismantled by the vehicle owner to be used as
spare parts or sold as scrap for recycling.
Based upon information provided by the Jordanian Ministry of Environment,32
the lithium-ion battery is exported outside Jordan at the vehicle’s end-of-life by
licensed companies as there are no factories inside of Jordan that deal with this
type of battery. The used tires are made into rubber pellets or to produce industrial
fuel. The oil used in ICEVs is recycled to the essential oil and allowed to be used
as an alternative fuel in cement factories.
The energy consumption and GHG emissions for recycling vehicle components
were considered in our study. Alternatively, the fluid and glass were assumed not
to be recycled due to their relatively inexpensive prices.
Data Collection for Fuel Cycle (Well-to-Wheel Phases)
(1) The GHG Emissions During the Fuel Life Cycle of ICEVs and EVs: There
are two sets of data to calculate the WTW of GHG emissions of the Nissan Leaf
ZE0. The first one is the GHG emissions of the WTW process of each power
source available in Jordan and the second one is the electricity generation mix data
for Jordan. Table 5 shows the GHG emissions in the WTW process of each power
source as presented by R. Turconi et al.33 They reviewed 167 studies about LCA
of electricity generation technologies and the worst case of GHG emissions was
Table 5
GHG EMISSIONS (GCO2EQ KWH-1) IN THE WTW PROCESS FOR EACH POWER SOURCE
USED TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY
The Number of Min. Max.
Data Sources (gCO2eq kWh21) (gCO2eq kWh21)
Coal 43 660 1,300
Oil 10 530 900
Natural Gas 23 380 1,000
Photovoltaic 22 13 190
Wind Energy 22 3 41
Hydropower 12 2 20
Biomass 25 8 130
Source: Data collected by authors based on R. Turconi, A. Boldrin, and T. Astrup, “Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) of Electricity Generation Technologies: Overview, Comparability and Limitations,”
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 28 (2013), pp. 555–65.
used in our study. The electricity generation mix data for power sources in Jordan
are presented in figure 2, while the electricity efficiency of Nissan Leaf ZE0 is
0.17 kWh km21 as given in table 1.
The emissions factor and fuel efficiency are the data necessary to calculate
GHG emissions during WTW for ICEVs. The fuel efficiency of the Mitsubishi
Lancer EX, as shown in table 1, is 0.073 L km21. The Joint Research Center
of European Commission (JRC) data were used for the WTW emissions factor
data for gasoline used in ICEVs.34 According to the JRC, the GHG emissions
during WTT were 463.8 gCO2eq L21 and the TTW GHG emissions were
2,314.5 gCO2eq L21. The value of GHG emissions for the Mitsubishi Lancer EX
is almost the same value estimated by the manufacturer.35
(2) The Energy Consumption During Fuel Life Cycle of ICEVs and EVs: The
energy consumption during the fuel life cycle was calculated by summing the
energy required to produce 1.0 MJ of gasoline during the WTT phase for ICEVs
or to generate 1.0 MJ of electricity for EVs and the amount of energy consumption
during the tank-to-wheel (operation phase) for both vehicles as listed below.
The WTT energy efficiency for gasoline production, which includes feedstock
recovery, processing, storage, and transportation of fuel will be assumed to be 80%
(1.25 MJPE MJFuel21) as reported by Argonne National Lab. On the other hand,
to determine the energy consumption of ICEV (MJFuel km21) during the tank-to-
wheel phase, it is important to know the density (kg L21), heating value (MJ
kg21) of the fuel, and fuel efficiency of ICEVs (L km21). The gasoline properties
used in ICEVs in Jordan is based on the Jordanian Technical Regulation for Auto-
motive Gasoline as follows: (a) the density is 0.723 kg L21 and (b) the average
heating value of the gasoline is 45 MJ kg21.36 Figure 5 summarizes the amount of
WTW energy consumption for the Mitsubishi Lancer EX vehicles with a fuel effi-
ciency engine 0.073 L km21.
The amount of energy consumption (MJPE km21) during the WTW phase of
EVs is particularly dependent on the technology used for electrical generation,
which is either from renewable or conventional sources. Therefore, to calculate the
energy consumption (MJPE km21) of EVs, there is a need for three sets of data.
First is the primary energy factor (MJPE MJel21) for each power source used to
generate electricity in Jordan, taking into consideration after that the power plant-
to-tank losses due to transmission and distribution of electricity, and EVs’ charging
losses. The second data set is the electricity generation mix data for Jordan. The
third data set is the energy consumption of the Nissan Leaf vehicle during the
TTW phase. The results are summarized in figures 6 and 7.
Table 6 illustrates the primary energy factor for renewable (wind, solar, bio-
mass, and hydro) and fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) generation technolo-
gies as presented by A. Stoffregen and O. Schuller.37 The primary energy factor is
an indicator of how much the primary energy was used to generate a unit of
electricity.
Figure 5
WTW ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR MITSUBISHI LANCER EX VEHICLES POWERED BY GASOLINE
65
66
Figure 6
WTW ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR NISSAN LEAF VEHICLES IN THE CASE WHERE A RENEWABLE SOURCE IS USED TO
GENERATE ELECTRICITY
THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT
Figure 7
WTW ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR NISSAN LEAF VEHICLES IN THE CASE WHERE A CONVENTIONAL SOURCE
(COAL, NATURAL GAS, OR OIL) IS USED TO GENERATE ELECTRICITY
67
Table 6
PRIMARY ENERGY FACTOR (MJPE MJEL-1) FROM RENEWABLE AND CONVENTIONAL
ELECTRICITY GENERATION TECHNOLOGIES
Power Generation Technologies MJPE MJel-1
Coal 3.5
Oil 3
Natural Gas 2.78
Solar Energy 0.15
Wind Energy 0.032
Hydropower 0.01
Biomass 0.18
Source: A. Stoffregen and O. Schuller, Primary Energy Demand of Renewable Energy Carriers
Part 1: Definitions, Accounting Methods and Their Applications with a Focus on Electricity and Heat
from Renewable Energies (Berlin: Thinkstep, 2014).
Electricity generation in Jordan depends largely on conventional energy sources

(especially natural gas) with other renewable energy sources as shown in figure 2.
Natural gas is mostly used in steam-electric power generation, simple cycle tur-
bines, and combined cycle turbines, which use waste heat recovery to increase
Figure 8
THE GHG EMISSIONS OF THE VEHICLE CYCLE WITH A 150,000 KM LIFETIMEa
EOL 5 end of life.

a
power plant efficiency. According to the National Electricity Company’s (NEPCO)

Annual Book 2020, the largest generating capacity of plants in Jordan was 4,242
MW.38 The average efficiency of the power plants is 32% for both simple cycle
gas turbines and simple cycle steam turbines, while the efficiency range of the
combined cycle is from 52% to 58%.39 In our case, the average energy efficiency
of power plants was assumed to be 40% to 45%. On the other hand, the distribu-
tion and transmission efficiency of carrying electricity over poles and wires from
power plants to a vehicle is about 88% to 92%. The charging efficiency for EVs
depends on the vehicles, but is typically between 80% and 90%, while the charging
efficiency of the Nissan Leaf is 85%. These numbers were based on the test data
published by H. Lohse-Busch et al.40
Finally, the energy consumption (MJ km21) during the TTW phase of EVs
depends on the electric motor efficiency of the vehicle. The TTW energy consump-
tion of the Nissan Leaf is 0.615 MJ km21, which is a function of the vehicle sys-
tem efficiency and includes vehicle-speed-dependent terms over the drive cycle.41
Figure 6 shows the energy consumption of EVs during the WTW phase when the
renewable sources were used to generate electricity, while the consumption of the
Figure 9
THE ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF THE VEHICLE CYCLE WITH A 150,000 KM LIFETIMEa
EOL 5 end of life.

a
Table 7
THE GHG EMISSIONS AND ENERGY CONSUMPTION OF GASOLINE PRODUCTION
AND ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION BASED ON THE ELECTRICITY GENERATION
SOURCES IN JORDAN, 2018
GHG Emissions (gCO2eq MJ-1) Energy Consumption (MJPE MJFF-1)
Gasoline 14.25 1.25
Electricity 251.4 2.5
Nissan Leaf is 0.615 MJ km21, which is a function of the vehicle system efficiency
and includes vehicle-speed-dependent terms over the drive cycle. While figure 7
shows the energy consumption of EVs during the WTW phase when conventional
sources were used to generate electricity.
Results and Discussion
Vehicle Cycle: Figures 8 and 9 summarize the amount of GHG emissions and
the amount of energy consumed during the vehicle cycle of both vehicles. It was
clear that the amount of GHG emissions and energy consumption of the EVs were
Figure 10
THE GHG EMISSIONS IN THE ENTIRE FUEL CYCLE (WTW) FOR ICEVS
(WHICH USED GASOLINE FUEL) COMPARED WITH EVS (WHICH USED THE
ELECTRICITY MIX IN JORDAN)
greater than ICEVs, 82 gCO2eq km21 and 53 gCO2eq km21, respectively, with
1.2 MJ km21 and 0.82 MJ km21 of energy consumption, respectively (GHG emis-
sions and energy consumption for EVs is greater by 1.5 times than ICEVs during
the vehicle cycle).
The reason for the high energy consumption and pollutant values of EVs was
related to the production and recycling of the lithium-ion battery because the
manufacturing process of a lithium-ion battery requires a large amount of energy
and results in a large amounts of pollutants.
In addition, the GHG emissions and energy consumption during the transporta-
tion phase of EVs were higher than ICEVs due to the energy intensity and emis-
sions factor of marine freight (sea) transportation, which was highly dependent
upon the vehicle weight. Additionally, the place from which the car was imported
was factored in as was previously mentioned. On the other hand, the GHG emis-
sions and energy consumption resulting from the production of fluid and mainte-
nance phase of ICEVs were greater than EVs due to the amount of fluid that was
required to be changed during the lifetime of the ICEV.
Fuel Cycle (Well-to-Wheel Phase) of EVs and ICEVs: The GHG emissions
and energy consumption for ICEVs in the fuel cycle were affected by emissions
factors, fuel efficiency, fuel density, and the fuel heating value. As mentioned in
Figure 11
THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION IN THE ENTIRE FUEL CYCLE (WTW)
FOR ICEVS (WHICH USED GASOLINE FUEL) COMPARED WITH EVS (WHICH USED
THE ELECTRICITY MIX IN JORDAN)
the previous section, the main parameters for EVs to determine the GHG emissions
and energy consumption were the electrical efficiency of these vehicles, emissions
factors for each power source used to generate electricity, and the proportion of
generation from each fuel source.
Well-to-Tank Phase: Electricity generation by conventional power sources (oil
and natural gas) in Jordan represents about 89.14% of the total electricity generated
as shown in figure 2, while the percentage of electricity generation from renewable
power sources (wind, solar, biomass, and hydropower) is 10.86%. The electricity
that is used to charge EVs in Jordan comes from the most energy-consuming and
higher emissions source relative to gasoline. Therefore, when looking at the results,
we find that during the WTT phase the GHG emissions produced to generate elec-
tricity is about 17.6 times more than gasoline production and consumes twice as
much energy as gasoline. Table 7 illustrates the amount of GHG emissions and
energy consumption per MJ due to the used electricity and gasoline of EVs and
ICEVs, respectively, during the WTT phase. If energy consumption and GHG
emissions are calculated based upon a per km distance traveling during this phase,
the results of the assessment of energy consumption and GHG emissions produced
Figure 12
THE GHG EMISSIONS FOR EVS COMPARED WITH ICEVS DURING
A COMPLETE VEHICLE LIFE CYCLE (VEHICLE CYCLE AND FUEL CYCLE)
WITH A 150,000 KM VEHICLE LIFETIMEa
EOL 5 end of life.

a
during the WTT phase for ICEVs is 0.62 MJ km21 and 33.8 gCO2eq km21,
respectively, and 1.4 MJ km21 and 153 gCO2eq km21, respectively, for EVs.
Tank-to-Wheel Phase: The energy consumption (MJFF km21) of ICEVs during
the tank-to-wheels phase depends on gasoline density (kg L21), the gasoline heat-
ing value (MJ kg21), and the fuel efficiency of ICEVs (L km21). Based on the
density of gasoline, fuel efficiency, and heating value, the energy consumption of
the Mitsubishi Lancer EX is 2.38 MJ km21 while the energy consumption of the
Nissan Leaf is 0.61 MJ km21, which is about five times less than the energy
required for the Mitsubishi Lancer EX. On the other hand, the GHG emissions of
the Mitsubishi Lancer EX are 2,314.5 gCO2eq L21 due to the gasoline used in the
TTW phase, while no GHGs are emitted in this phase for the Nissan Leaf.
The Entire Fuel Cycle (Well-to-Wheels): When considering the overall fuel life
cycle, the energy consumption and GHG emissions of ICEVs were higher than
those of EVs as shown in figures 10 and 11. The total GHG emissions in the fuel
cycle of ICEVs was 200 gCO2eq km21 with 3.0 MJ km21 energy consumption,
while the total GHG emissions in the fuel cycle of EVs was 153 gCO2eq km21
with 2.18 MJ km21 of energy consumption. It can be observed that the energy
Figure 13
THE ENERGY CONSUMPTION FOR EVS COMPARED WITH ICEVS DURING
WITH A 150,000 KM LIFETIMEA
EOL 5 end of life.

a
consumption reduction benefit was 27% and about 23% GHG emissions benefit of
EVs in the fuel cycle.
The Complete Life Cycle of ICEVs and EVs: The total amount of GHG
emissions produced during the complete life cycle (assuming that the vehicle life-
time is 150,000 km) of the Nissan Leaf was 35.3 tons CO2eq (235 gCO2eq km21)
and for the Mitsubishi Lancer EX it was 38 tons CO2eq (249 gCO2eq km21). This
means that the Mitsubishi Lancer EX vehicle produced slightly more GHG emis-
sions than the Nissan Leaf during the life cycle as shown in figure 12. The GHG
emissions during the usage phase represented 80% of the total life cycle for the
Mitsubishi Lancer EX vehicle and 65% for the Nissan Leaf, the results of the use
phase (WTW) were previously explained.
It is clear that the GHG emissions during the production phase and end-of-life
(EOL) phase of the Nissan Leaf vehicle were higher than the Mitsubishi Lancer
EX vehicle by 1.6 and 1.9, respectively, due to the large amount of emissions asso-
ciated with the production and recycling of the lithium-ion battery. Regarding the
maintenance phase, it is evident that the contribution to the emissions was low dur-
ing the vehicle life cycle, while the results showed that the emissions from the
Figure 14
THE GHG EMISSIONS FOR EVS COMPARED WITH ICEVS DURING A COMPLETE
VEHICLE LIFE CYCLE (VEHICLE CYCLE AND FUEL CYCLE) WITH A
250,000 KM LIFETIMEa
EOL 5 end of life.

a
maintenance phase of the Mitsubishi Lancer EX vehicle were 1.5 times more than
the same phase for the Nissan Leaf.
Figure 13 illustrates the total values of energy consumption for the Nissan Leaf
and Mitsubishi Lancer EX vehicles during the life cycle of the vehicle; the results
show that the total energy consumption for the Mitsubishi Lancer EX was 573 GJ
(3.82 MJ km21), 1.2 times more than the Nissan Leaf, which was 477 GJ
(3.18 MJ km21). The use phase of both vehicles accounts for the largest share of
energy consumption. The energy consumption of the Mitsubishi Lancer EX during
the use phase was 1.5 times more than the Nissan Leaf. On the other hand, the
energy consumption during the WTW phase of the Nissan Leaf was 62% during
its life cycle, while it was 79% for the Mitsubishi Lancer.
Sensitivity Analysis: In this section, the calculation of energy consumption and
GHG emissions were repeated using a vehicle life of 250,000 km and 350,000 km
driving distance to illustrate how it affects the complete life cycle of ICEVs and
EVs vehicles. Moreover, the GHG emissions and energy consumptions were calcu-
lated for EVs during the WTW phase in case any of the power source technologies
were used to generate electricity and compared with ICEVs.
Figure 15
WITH A 250,000 KM LIFETIMEa
EOL 5 end of life.

a
250,000 Km Vehicle Lifetime: Figure 14 shows the total amount of GHG emis-
sions with a 250,000 km vehicle lifetime for both the Nissan Leaf and Mitsubishi
Lancer EX vehicles. The lifetime GHG emissions for the Nissan Leaf and Mitsu-
bishi Lancer were 214.8 gCO2eq km21 and 233.5 gCO2eq km21, respectively.
This means the GHG emissions are lowered by 9% and 8%, respectively, com-
pared with an analysis using a 150,000 km vehicle lifetime.
As shown in figure 14, the results of the use phase were unchanged compared
to the previous analysis because the emissions during the use phase did not depend
on the vehicle’s lifetime but mainly depended on the vehicle efficiency. The other
phases including production, transportation, and vehicle end of the life had a
lower amount of emissions per km because the GHG emissions of these phases
had a fixed amount that changed over the vehicle’s lifetime. The results of
the maintenance phase had higher GHG emissions than the previous section
analysis (150,000 km vehicle lifetime) due to the vehicle’s need for continuous
maintenance during its lifetime such as changing tires, battery, fluid, and mechani-
cal parts.
Figure 16
THE GHG EMISSIONS FOR EVS COMPARED WITH ICEVS DURING
EOL 5 end of life.

a
The same results were calculated as shown in figure 15 for the energy consump-
tion assuming a 250,000 km vehicle life. For the Nissan Leaf, energy consumption
was 2.9 MJ km21 and was 3.5 MJ km21 for the Mitsubishi Lancer EX, which was
lower by 9% and 8%, respectively, compared to the150,000 km vehicle lifetime.
The energy consumption during the use phase did not change, while the produc-
tion, transportation, and EOL had lower amounts, as the maintenance phase had a
higher amount.
350,000 Km Vehicle Lifetime: Figures 16 and 17 show the energy consumption
and GHG emissions for EVs compared with ICEVs with 350,000 km vehicle life-
time. The GHG emissions for the Nissan Leaf and Mitsubishi Lancer EX vehicles
were 206 gCO2eq km21 and 225 gCO2eq km21, respectively, coupled with
energy consumptions of 2.8 MJ km21 and 3.4 MJ km21, respectively. This means
that the GHG emissions for the Nissan Leaf and Mitsubishi Lancer EX vehicles
were lower by 12% and 10%, respectively, and the energy consumptions were
lower by 12% and 11%, respectively, compared to the150,000 km vehicle lifetime.
Figure 17
EOL 5 end of life.

a
As can be seen from figures 16 and 17, results for the assessment of EVs with a
350,000 km lifetime showed there was a clear increase of GHG emissions and
energy consumption during the maintenance phase because of the need to replace
the lithium-ion battery for EVs twice within the 350,000 km vehicle lifetime.
As previously discussed, the vehicle lifetime in Jordan may reach 350,000 km
or more, so the GHG emissions and energy consumption results calculated in this
section were close to the use of both EVs and ICEVs in Jordan.
Conclusion
In the presented work, the life cycle assessment methodology was conducted to
compare EVs with ICEVs in terms of GHG emissions and energy consumption
during a complete life cycle analysis of vehicles (fuel cycle and vehicle cycle) in
Jordan. To summarize our results, from the LCA analysis we found that there were
two important parameters in determining the GHG emissions and energy consump-
tion of EVs during a complete vehicle life cycle. The first parameter was the elec-
trical generation source used for charging the EVs and the second one was the
vehicle driving distance during the lifetime measured in km. The electrical genera-
tion mix used in charging the EV was the main parameter in identifying the
amount of GHG emissions and energy consumption during the life cycle of the
EV. There was a significant impact for using EVs in Jordan on GHG emissions
and energy consumption because the electricity generation by conventional power
sources (oil and natural gas) represented around 89.14% of the total electricity gen-
erated. EVs driven consumed approximately 3.18 MJ km21 of energy coupled
with GHG emissions of 235 gCO2eq km21 while ICEVs consumed 3.82 MJ km21
of energy coupled with GHG emissions of 249 gCO2eq km21 in the assessment
with the vehicle lifetime of 150,000 km in Jordan. The vehicle lifetime was the
second most important parameter, the longer lifetime of the vehicle shifts the
energy consumption (MJ km21) and GHG emissions (gCO2eq km21) to be less
for both vehicles.
The fuel cycle (WTW) had the greatest impact on GHG emissions and energy
consumption compared to the vehicle cycle for both EVs and ICEVs during the
lifetime of the vehicles. The amount of GHG emissions and energy consumption
was greater for ICEVs with 200 gCO2eq km21 and 3 MJ km21, respectively, com-
pared with 153 gCO2eq km21 and 1.98 MJ km21, respectively, for EVs during the
fuel cycle. On the other hand, EVs had greater numbers relative to ICEVs during
the vehicle cycle with GHG emissions of 82 gCO2eq km21 and energy consump-
tion of 1.2 MJ km21 compared with the ICEVs, which had GHG emissions of
52.9 gCO2eq km21 and energy consumption of 0.82 MJ km21. In the fuel cycle
(WTW), the majority of energy consumption and all the GHG emissions of EVs
were during the WTT phase, specifically caused by the electricity production
(1.57 MJ km21 of energy consumed and 153 gCO2eq km21 of GHG emissions).
On the other hand, the majority of energy consumption and the GHG emissions
for ICEVs were on the road during the TTW phase with 2.38 MJ km21 and
167 gCO2eq km21, respectively.
In our assessment, the EVs with the 350,000 km lifetime produced a large
amount of GHG emissions (18.7 gCO2eq km21) and energy consumption
(0.293 MJ km21) during the maintenance phase compared with ICEVs, which had
GHG emissions of 3.58 gCO2eq km21 and energy consumption of 0.089 MJ km21.
The reason for this is the need to replace the lithium-ion battery twice for EVs
within the 350,000 km lifetime as the production and recycling of the lithium-ion
battery has a high environmental impact to be added on to the maintenance phase
for the vehicle.
Our research findings are important for policy makers both inside and outside
of Jordan as they show the importance of evaluating multiple factors when com-
paring the life cycle and impacts of EVs relative to ICEVs. This is critical as coun-
tries are making important decisions regarding how best to implement their energy
transition plans and agendas. Much of the research on EVs versus ICEVs comes
from countries in which the electricity power generation mix has larger amounts of
renewable energy sources relative to Jordan’s and where the vehicle lifetimes are
shorter leading to fewer EV lithium-ion battery replacements. However, for coun-
tries that have an electricity generation mix that is similar to Jordan’s and with
similar relatively long vehicle lifetimes, our research findings have significant
implications. The results suggest that a better understanding of energy consumption
and GHG emissions on a country basis, including determining the average vehicle
lifetime and sources of electricity generation for EVs, are key to making prudent
decisions to reduce energy consumption, improve the environment, and meet GHG
emission targets.
NOTES
1
T. Bunsen et al., Global EV Outlook 2018: Towards Cross-Modal Electrification (Paris:
OECD/IEA, 2018).
2
Department of Statistics, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Jordan Statistical Yearbook 2017
(Amman, Jordan: Department of Statistics, 2017), available at http://dosweb.dos.gov.jo/products/
statistical_yearbook2017/.
3
A. Burnham, M. Wang, and Y. Wu, Development and Applications of GREET 2.7—The
Transportation Vehicle-Cycle Model (Washington, D.C.: Technical Report of the U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Scientific and Technical Information, 2006).
4
X. Liu, K. Reddi, A. Elgowainy, H. Lohse-Busch, M. Wang, and N. Rustagi, “Comparison of
Well-to-Wheels Energy Use and Emissions of a Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicle Relative to a
Conventional Gasoline-Powered Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle,” International Journal of
Hydrogen Energy, vol. 45, no. 1 (2020), pp. 972–83.
5
S. I. Ehrenberger, J. B. Dunn, G. Jungmeier, and H. Wang, “An International Dialogue about
Electric Vehicle Deployment to Bring Energy and Greenhouse Gas Benefits through 2030 on a
Well-to-Wheels Basis,” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 74

(2019), pp. 245–54.
6
S. Kosai, M. Nakanishi, and E. Yamasue, “Vehicle Energy Efficiency Evaluation from Well-
to-Wheel Lifecycle Perspective,” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment,
vol. 65 (2018), pp. 355–67.
7
C. C. Onn, C. Chai, A. F. Abd Rashid, M. R. Karim, and S. Yusoff, “Vehicle Electrification
in a Developing Country: Status and Issue, from a Well-to-Wheel Perspective,” Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 50 (2017), pp. 192–201.
8
R. Faria, P. Marques, P. Moura, F. Freire, J. Delgado, and A. de Almeida, “Impact of the
Electricity Mix and Use Profile in the Life-Cycle Assessment of Electric Vehicles,” Renewable
and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 24 (2013), pp. 271–87.
9
B. Singh and A. H. Strømman, “Environmental Assessment of Electrification of Road Trans-
port in Norway: Scenarios and Impacts,” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Envi-
ronment, vol. 25 (2013), pp. 106–11.
10
D. Burchart-Korol, S. Jursova, P. FoleR ga, J. Korol, P. Pustejovska, and A. Blaut,
“Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Electric Vehicles in Poland and the Czech Republic,”
Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 202 (2018), pp. 476–87.
11
F. Del Pero, M. Delogu, and M. Pierini, “Life Cycle Assessment in the Automotive Sector:
A Comparative Case Study of Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) and Electric Car,” Procedia
Structural Integrity, vol. 12 (2018), pp. 521–37.
12
C. Tagliaferri, S. Evangelisti, F. Acconcia, T. Domenech, P. Ekins, D. Barletta, and P.
Lettieri, “Life Cycle Assessment of Future Electric and Hybrid Vehicles: A Cradle-to-Grave
Systems Engineering Approach,” Chemical Engineering Research and Design, vol. 112 (2016),
pp. 298–309.
13
A. Yu, Y. Wei, W. Chen, N. Peng, and L. Peng, “Life Cycle Environmental Impacts and
Carbon Emissions: A Case Study of Electric and Gasoline Vehicles in China,” Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 65 (2018), pp. 409–20.
14
Y. Bicer and I. Dincer, “Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Hydrogen, Methanol and
Electric Vehicles from Well to Wheel,” International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, vol. 42, no. 6
(2017), pp. 3767–777.
15
R. Kawamoto, H. Mochizuki, Y. Moriguchi, T. Nakano, M. Motohashi, Y. Sakai, and A.
Inaba, “Estimation of CO2 Emissions of Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle and Battery Electric
Vehicle Using LCA,” Sustainability, vol. 11, no. 9 (2019).
16
oderman, and J. Van Mierlo, “Environmental
A. Nordel€of, M. Messagie, A.-M. Tillman, M. S€
Impacts of Hybrid, Plug-in Hybrid, and Battery Electric Vehicles—What Can We Learn from Life
Cycle Assessment?” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 19, no. 11 (2014),
pp. 1866–890.
17
A. Mayyas, M. Omar, M. Hayajneh, and A. Mayyas, “Vehicle’s Lightweight Design vs.
Electrification from Life Cycle Assessment Perspective,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 167
(2017), pp. 687–701.
18
C. Koffler, “Life Cycle Assessment of Automotive Lightweighting through Polymers under
US Boundary Conditions,” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 19, no. 3
(2014), pp. 538–45.
19
A. Albatayneh, M. Assaf, M. Al-Qroum, and D. Alterman, “Energy Saving and CO2 Mitiga-
tion as a Result of Reshaping Transportation in Jordan to Focus on the Use of Electric Passenger
Cars,” vol. 25, no. 1 (2021), pp. 222–32.
20
K. Christiansen, “The New International Standards for Life Cycle Assessment: ISO 14040
and ISO 14044,” The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 11, no. 2 (2006),
pp. 80–5.
21
D. Burchart-Korol et al., op. cit., and T. R. Hawkins, B. Singh, G. Majeau-Bettez, and A. H.
Strømman, “Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and
Electric Vehicles,” Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol. 17, no. 1 (2013), pp. 53–64, and C. Taglia-
ferri et al., “Life Cycle Assessment of Future Electric and Hybrid Vehicles: A Cradle-to-Grave
Systems Engineering Approach,” Chemical Engineering Research and Design, vol. 112 (2016),
pp. 298–309.
22
A. Burnham et al., op. cit.; G. Keoleian, S. Miller, R. De Kleine, A. Fang, and J. Mosley,
“Life Cycle Material Data Update for GREET Model,” Center for Sustainable Systems Report
No. CSS12-12.2012, Ann Arbor, University of Michigan, 2012; and Argonne National Laboratory
(ANL), GREET: The Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation
Model (Lemont, Illinois: U.S. Department of Energy, ANL, 2018).
23
R. Turconi, A. Boldrin, and T. Astrup, “Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Electricity Genera-
tion Technologies: Overview, Comparability and Limitations,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, vol. 28 (2013), pp. 555–65; International Energy Agency (IEA), World Energy Outlook
2019 (Paris: IEA, 2019); A. Stoffregen and O. Schuller, Primary Energy Demand of Renewable
Energy Carriers Part 1: Definitions, Accounting Methods and Their Applications with a Focus on
Electricity and Heat from Renewable Energies (Berlin: Thinkstep, 2014); and R. Edwards, J.-F.
Larive, and J.-C. Beziat, Well-to-Wheels Analysis of Future Automotive Fuels and Power Trains
in the European Context (Luxembourg: Institute for Energy and Transport and Joint Research
Centre, Publications Office of the European Union, 2014).
24
The Jordanian Ministry of Environment, Dealing with Car Components at the End of the
Car’s Life in Jordan, ed. Ashraf Dawagreh (Amman: Ministry of Environment, the Hashemite
Kingdom of Jordan, 2020).
25
Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), op. cit.
26
A. Burnham et al., op. cit.; G. Keoleian et al., op. cit.; and H. L. Brown, B. B. Hamel, and
B. A. Hedman, Energy Analysis of 108 Industrial Processes (Lilburn, Georgia: Fairmont Press,
1986).
27
H. C. Kim, T. J. Wallington, R. Arsenault, C. Bae, S. Ahn, and J. Lee, “Cradle-to-Gate Emis-
sions from a Commercial Electric Vehicle Li-Ion Battery: A Comparative Analysis,” Environmen-
tal Science & Technology, vol. 50, no. 14 (2016), pp. 7715–722.
28
Nissan Motor Corporation, “U.S. Production for All-New 2018 Nissan Leaf Begins in
Tennessee Today,” Nissan website, December 4, 2017.
29
International Energy Agency (IEA), World Energy Outlook 2019 (Paris: IEA, 2019).
30
Green Car Congress, “Nissan to Warranty Leaf Battery for 8 Years, 100,000 Miles,” Green
Car Congress website, July 27, 2010.
31
B. Bras and A. Cobert, “Life-Cycle Environmental Impact of Michelin TweelV R Tire for
Passenger Vehicles,” SAE International Journal of Passenger Cars-Mechanical Systems, vol. 4,

no. 1, (2011), pp. 32–43.
32
The Jordanian Ministry of Environment, Dealing with Car Components at the End of the
Car's Life in Jordan.
33
R. Turconi, A. Boldrin, and T. Astrup, “Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Electricity Genera-
tion Technologies: Overview, Comparability and Limitations,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, vol. 28 (2013), pp. 555–65.
34
R. Edwards, J.-F. Larive, and J.-C. Beziat, Well-to-Wheels Analysis of Future Automotive
Fuels and Power Trains in the European Context (Luxembourg: Institute for Energy and Trans-
port and Joint Research Centre, Publications Office of the European Union, 2014).
35
U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Automotive Trends Report 2018 (Wash-
ington, D.C.: U.S. EPA, 2018).
36
Jordan Petroleum Refinery Company (JPRCO), Specification for Automotive Gasoline
(Amman: Jordan Petroleum Refinery Company Laboratories & Quality Control Department,
2018).
37
A. Stoffregen and O. Schuller, Primary Energy Demand of Renewable Energy Carriers Part
1: Definitions, Accounting Methods and Their Applications with a Focus on Electricity and Heat
from Renewable Energies (Berlin: Thinkstep, 2014).
38
National Electric Power Company (Nepco), op. cit.
39
G. F. M. De Souza, Thermal Power Plant Performance Analysis (New York: Springer,
2012).
40
H. Lohse-Busch, M. Duoba, E. Rask, and M. Meyer, Advanced Powertrain Research Facility
AVTA Nissan Leaf Testing and Analysis (Lemont, Illinois: U.S. Department of Energy, Argonne
National Laboratory, 2012).
41
G. Sovran, “Revisiting the Formulas for Tractive and Braking Energy on the EPA Driving
Schedules,” SAE International Journal of Passenger Cars-Mechanical Systems, vol. 6 (2013),
pp. 269–82.
APPENDIX
Table 1
NOMENCLATURE
GHG Greenhouse gas TTW Tank to wheel
EV Electric vehicle LCA Life cycle assessment
GREET Greenhouse gases, regulated ICEV Internal combustion engine
emissions, and energy use in vehicle
transportation
PHEV Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle HEV Hybrid electric vehicle
WTW Well to wheel FCEV Fuel cell electric vehicle
WTT Well to tank BEV Battery electric vehicle
ICE Internal combustion engine GWP Global warming potential
EOL End of life PE Primary energy
gCO2eq gCO2 equivalent

The Journal of Energy and Development

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

The Journal of Energy and Development

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE JOURNAL OF ENERGY

Ghassan Tashtoush, Osama Saadeh,

Ghassan Tashtoush, Osama Saadeh, AND Ashraf Dawagreh*

D ue to the depletion of fossil resources and climate change, electric vehicles

*Ghassan Tashtoush is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Jordan University of Science and

The Journal of Energy and Development, Vol. 48, Nos. 1-2

body-in-white. Additionally, C. Kofﬂer studied the environmental implications of

Material and Method

A one-kilometer driving distance is used in the analysis to calculate GHG

Source: Data collected by authors based upon Jordanian vehicle ownership.

Data Collection for Fuel Cycle (Well-to-Wheel Phases)

Electricity generation in Jordan depends largely on conventional energy sources

EOL 5 end of life.

power plant efﬁciency. According to the National Electricity Company’s (NEPCO)

EOL 5 end of life.

Results and Discussion

EOL 5 end of life.

EOL 5 end of life.

EOL 5 end of life.

EOL 5 end of life.

EOL 5 end of life.

EOL 5 end of life.

Well-to-Wheels Basis,” Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, vol. 74

Passenger Vehicles,” SAE International Journal of Passenger Cars-Mechanical Systems, vol. 4,

You might also like