Purpose The purpose of this review article is to investigate the usefulness of different types of life cycle assessment (LCA) studies of electrified vehicles to provide robust and relevant stakeholder information. It presents synthesized conclusions based on 79 papers. Another objective is to search for explanations to divergence and "complexity" of results found by other overviewing papers in the research field, and to compile methodological learnings. The hypothesis was that such divergence could be explained by differences in goal and scope definitions of the reviewed LCA studies. Methods The review has set special attention to the goal and scope formulation of all included studies. First, completeness and clarity have been assessed in view of the ISO standard's (ISO 2006a, b) recommendation for goal definition.Secondly, studies have been categorized based on technical and methodological scope, and searched for coherent conclusions.Results and discussion Comprehensive goal formulation according to the ISO standard (ISO 2006a, b) is absent in most reviewed studies. Few give any account of the time scope, indicating the temporal validity of results and conclusions. Furthermore, most studies focus on today's electric vehicle technology, which is under strong development. Consequently, there is a lack of future time perspective, e.g., to advances in material processing, manufacturing of parts, and changes in electricity production. Nevertheless, robust assessment conclusions may still be identified. Most obvious is that electricity production is the main cause of environmental impact for externally chargeable vehicles. If, and only if, the charging electricity has very low emissions of fossil carbon, electric vehicles can reach their full potential in mitigating global warming. Consequently, it is surprising that almost no studies make this stipulation a main conclusion and try to convey it as a clear message to relevant stakeholders. Also, obtaining resources can be observed as a key area for future research. In mining, leakage of toxic substances from mine tailings has been highlighted. Efficient recycling, which is often assumed in LCA studies of electrified vehicles, may reduce demand for virgin resources and production energy. However, its realization remains a future challenge. Conclusions LCA studies with clearly stated purposes and time scope are key to stakeholder lessons and guidance. It is also necessary for quality assurance. LCA practitioners studying hybrid and electric vehicles are strongly recommended to provide comprehensive and clear goal and scope formulation in line with the ISO standard (ISO 2006a, b). Responsible editor: Hans-Joerg AlthausElectronic supplementary material The online version of this article

The challenge of assessing emerging technologies with life cycle assessment (LCA) has been increasingly discussed in the LCA field. In this article, we propose a definition of prospective LCA: An LCA is prospective when the (emerging) technology studied is in an early phase of development (e.g., small-scale production), but the technology is modeled at a future, more-developed phase (e.g., large-scale production). Methodological choices in prospective LCA must be adapted to reflect this goal of assessing environmental impacts of emerging technologies, which deviates from the typical goals of conventional LCA studies. The aim of the article is to provide a number of recommendations for how to conduct such prospective assessments in a relevant manner. The recommendations are based on a detailed review of selected prospective LCA case studies, mainly from the areas of nanomaterials, biomaterials, and energy technologies. We find that it is important to include technology alternatives that are relevant for the future in prospective LCA studies. Predictive scenarios and scenario ranges are two general approaches to prospective inventory modeling of both foreground and background systems. Many different data sources are available for prospective modeling of the foreground system: scientific articles; patents; expert interviews; unpublished experimental data; and process modeling. However, we caution against temporal mismatches between foreground and background systems, and recommend that foreground and background system impacts be reported separately in order to increase the usefulness of the results in other prospective studies. Keywords:case study emerging technology industrial ecology life cycle assessment (LCA) prospective technological changeConflict of interest statement: The authors have no conflict to declare.

No abstract

Purpose Life cycle assessment (LCA) literature evaluating environmental burdens from lithium-ion battery (LIB) production facilities lacks an understanding of how environmental burdens have changed over time due to a transition to large-scale production. The purpose of this study is hence to examine the effect of upscaling LIB production using unique life cycle inventory data representative of large-scale production. A sub-goal of the study is to examine how changes in background datasets affect environmental impacts. Method We remodel an often-cited study on small-scale battery production by Ellingsen et al. (2014), representative of operations in 2010, and couple it to updated Ecoinvent background data. Additionally, we use new inventory data to model LIB cell production in a large-scale facility representative of the latest technology in LIB production. The cell manufactured in the small-scale facility is an NMC-1:1:1 (nickel-manganese-cobalt) pouch cell, whereas in the large-scale facility, the cell produced in an NMC-8:1:1 cylindrical cell. We model production in varying carbon intensity scenarios using recycled and exclusively primary materials as input options. We assess environmental pollution–related impacts using ReCiPe midpoint indicators and resource use impacts using the surplus ore method (ReCiPe) and the crustal scarcity indicator. Results and discussion Remodelling of the small-scale factory using updated background data showed a 34% increase in greenhouse gas emissions — linked to updated cobalt sulfate production data. Upscaling production reduced emissions by nearly 45% in the reference scenario (South Korean energy mix) due to a reduced energy demand in cell production. However, the emissions reduce by a further 55% if the energy is sourced from a low-carbon intensity source (Swedish energy mix), shifting almost all burden to upstream supply chain. Regional pollution impacts such as acidification and eutrophication show similar trends. Toxic emissions also reduce, but unlike other impacts, they were already occurring during mining and ore processing. Lastly, nickel, cobalt, and lithium use contribute considerably to resource impacts. From a long-term perspective, copper becomes important from a resource scarcity perspective. Conclusions Upscaling LIB production shifts environmental burdens to upstream material extraction and production, irrespective of the carbon intensity of the energy source. Thus, a key message for the industry and policy makers is that further reductions in the climate impacts from LIB production are possible, only when the upstream LIB supply chain uses renewable energy source. An additional message to LCA practitioners is to examine the effect of changing background systems when evaluating maturing technologies.

αγηβ αγηβ αγηβ αγηβΦ Φ Φ Φ Abstract --The battery is an important component in an electric vehicle (EV) or a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) and it should be charged from the grid in a cost efficient, preferably fast and definitely safe way. The charger could be an on board or an off board charger. For an on board charger it is possible to use available hardware of the traction system, mainly the inverter and the electric motor, in the charger circuit. This is called an integrated charger. In this paper, different examples of integrated chargers are reviewed and explained. Additionally, other possible solutions of integrated chargers are described. Index Terms-AC Machines, battery chargers, converters, road vehicle electric propulsion. Φ Financial support from the Swedish Energy Agency and the Swedish Hybrid Vehicle Centre is gratefully acknowledged. S. Haghbin, S. Lundmark and O. Carlson are with the Electric Power Engineering division,