See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/314216388

Well-to-wheel analysis of greenhouse gas emissions for electric vehicles

based on electricity generation mix: A global perspective

Article  in  Transportation Research Part D Transport and Environment · March 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.trd.2017.01.005

CITATIONS READS

23 1,984

3 authors, including:

JongRoul Woo Hyunhong Choi

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Seoul National University
16 PUBLICATIONS   115 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   38 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Analyzing Market Adoption and Environmental Impact of Electric Vehicles View project

Public Attitude toward Public Policy View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hyunhong Choi on 23 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Well-to-wheel analysis of greenhouse gas emissions for electric vehicles based on electricity

generation mix: A global perspective

JongRoul Wooa, Hyunhong Choib, Joongha Ahnc, ∗

a PhD Candidate, Technology Management, Economics, and Policy Program, College of Engineering, Seoul National University, San

56-1, Sillim-Dong, Kwanak-Gu, Seoul 151-742, South Korea; Tel: +82-2-880-83 86; Fax: +82-2-873-7229; Email: [email protected]

b PhD Student, Technology Management, Economics, and Policy Program, College of Engineering, Seoul National University, San 56-

1, Sillim-Dong, Kwanak-Gu, Seoul 151-742, South Korea; Tel: +82-2-880-8386; Fax: +82-2-873-7229; Email: [email protected]

c Research Fellow, Samsung Economic Research Institute, 29th Floor, Samsung Life Seocho Tower, Seocho 2-dong, Seocho-gu, Seoul,

137-955, South Korea; Tel: +82-2-3780-8024; Fax: +82-2-3780-8006; Email: [email protected]

★Note: This document is a pre-press version of the article, published in 2017 by

Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 51,
pages 340-350,
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.01.005

The article on the journal website is at:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1361920916301973

There may be slight formatting and editorial differences from

The published version

Please cite as:

Woo, J., Choi, H., & Ahn, J. (2017). Well-to-wheel analysis of greenhouse gas
emissions for electric vehicles based on electricity generation mix: A global
perspective. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 51, 340-
350.

∗
Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-2-3780-8024; Fax: +82-2-3780-8006

1
Abstract

In the transport sector, electric vehicles (EVs) are widely accepted as the next technology paradigm,

capable of solving the environmental problems associated with internal combustion engine vehicles

(ICEVs). However, EVs also have environmental impacts that are directly related to the country’s

electricity generation mix. In countries without an environmentally friendly electricity generation

mix, EVs may not be effective in lowering greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In this study, we

analyzed the extent to which the GHG emissions associated with EVs differs among 70 countries in

the world, in relation to their domestic electricity generation mix. Then, we compared the results

with the GHG emissions from the ICEVs. Countries with a high percentage of fossil fuels in their

electricity generation mix showed high GHG emissions for EVs, and for some of these countries,

EVs were associated with more GHG emissions than ICEVs. For these countries, policies based on

the positive environmental impact of EVs may have to be reconsidered. In addition, different policies

may need to be considered for different vehicle types (compact car, SUV, etc.), because the ability of

EVs to reduce GHG emissions compared to that of ICEVs varies by vehicle type.

Keywords: Well-to-wheel, greenhouse gas emission, electric vehicle, electricity generation mix

2
1. Introduction

Since the latter part of the 20th century, climate change has become a global issue. Governments and

people around the world noticed the negative effects that excessive greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

can have on our nature and society. Consequently, they are continuing their efforts to reduce the use

of fossil fuels, which are considered the main source of emission of GHGs and other pollutants.

The transport sector is a major contributor to the world’s fossil fuel consumption and GHG

emissions. In 2013, the energy spent in the transport sector comprised 27.6% of the total energy

consumption in the world and 92.6% of this amount was based on the consumption of oil products

(IEA, 2016). In addition, CO2 emissions generated by the transport sector were 22.9% of the total

CO2 emissions in the world (IEA, 2015a). As a consequence, there is now a tacit consensus

worldwide on the need to change the technological paradigm in the transport sector to improve the

air quality and reduce GHG emissions. Given this situation, EVs are considered as the energy

efficient solution to the environmental problems associated with the conventional Internal

Combustion Engine Vehicles (ICEVs) because the former produce zero tail pipe emissions.

Market penetration of BEVs has been very slow and restricted until recently, because of their

shortcomings such as a short traveling distance, long charging time, unaffordability, and under-

developed or non-existent charging infrastructure (Larminie and Lowry, 2003; Nilsson, 2011; Bishop

et al., 2014; Wikström, et al., 2014; Donateo et al., 2015). However, the annual sales of EVs have

been increasing rapidly in the recent years. With a significant reduction in the prices of EVs, in

addition to governmental regulations related to GHG (mainly CO2) and fuel efficiency all around the

world, the market demand for EVs is growing notably. In 2011, the annual global BEV sales were

approximately 36,000 units. This number increased by over 50% in 2012, exceeding 55,000 units. In

2013, the annual sales were beyond 100,000 units, and in 2014, they exceeded 160,000 units with the

global BEV stock of over 350,000 units (IEA, 2013; IEA 2015c). In Norway, more than 10% of the

annual car sales in 2014 comprised BEVs (IEA, 2015c). In addition, global car sales are expected to

3
rise by about 40% from 2013 (83 million units) to 2020 (117 million units) and 41% of the increased

demand (14 million units) is expected to consist of Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEVs) and

BEVs (JD Power, 2013).

Although EVs are now considered as the next technology paradigm in the transport sector,

their actual effect on the environment is directly related to the electricity generation mix used in a

particular country. Therefore, for countries that do not have an environmentally friendly (in terms of

GHG emissions) electricity generation mix, some argue that EVs may not be very effective in

reducing GHG emissions (Faria et al., 2013; Freire and Marques, 2012; Doucette and McCulloch,

2011; Tomic and Kempton, 2007; Huo et al. 2009; Wu et al., 2007; Granvskii et al., 2006; Helms et

al., 2010; Varga, 2013; Nichols et al., 2015; Bickert et al., 2015; Huo et al., 2015; Rangaraju et al.,

2015; Tamayao et al., 2015; Jochem et al., 2016).

Some studies linking the GHG emissions associated with EVs to a particular country’s

electricity generation mix have been conducted recently. Varga (2013) analyzed the CO2 emissions of

EVs and ICEVs considering Romania’s electricity generation mix. He pointed out that even if the EV

market penetration were increased in accordance with the Romanian government’s EV supply policy,

it would not lead to a reduction in the CO2 emissions in the country. Faria et al. (2013) selected three

countries, each of which depends heavily on a particular type of energy, namely fossil fuels (Poland),

nuclear energy (France), and renewable energy (Portugal), in their electricity generation mix and

compared the GHG emissions of EVs in these countries. Hawkins et al. (2013) claimed that

considering the average electricity generation mix, EVs in Europe will help reduce the GHG

emissions by 10-24% compared to ICEVs. Onat et al. (2013) considered the electricity generation

mix of the 51 states in the United States, and compared the GHG emissions of ICEVs, hybrid electric

vehicles (HEVs), PHEVs, and BEVs. The results showed that, according to the average electricity

generation mix scenario (EPA, 2009), the GHG emissions calculated for BEVs were the lowest in 24

states and according to the near-future marginal electricity generation mix scenario (Hadley and

4
Tsvetkova, 2009; Thomas 2012), BEVs were not associated with the lowest emissions of GHGs in

any of the states. According to Onat et al. (2013), a high market penetration of BEVs in the near

future would be an “unwise” strategy based on the existing and near-future scenarios.

One of the limitations of the above-mentioned studies is that their analyses are based on a

single country, mainly a European or a North American country. To clarify whether or to what extent

BEVs could help solve global GHG emission-related problems, such as climate change, these studies

will need to be extended to more countries to obtain a global viewpoint. Furthermore, to compare the

GHG emissions associated with EVs with those of ICEVs from a global viewpoint, the entire supply

chain of the power source for different vehicular technologies (electricity or oil) must be considered.

Although studies evaluating the environmental effect of EVs from a global viewpoint have

not yet been actively pursued, Doucette and McCulloch (2011) compared the CO2 emissions of

ICEVs and those associated with BEVs in the United States, China, India, and France by considering

their electricity generation mix. However, these researchers did not use the actual EV data, instead,

they used the “estimated” specifications of the hypothetical EVs. This was because their study was

carried out in 2011, and at that time, there were not many commercialized EVs in circulation.

Moreover, even though their study included some major countries, it still falls short of obtaining a

global-level implication of the environmental effects of BEVs.

In this study, the vehicle technology of interest is conventional motorization, as represented

by both gasoline and diesel ICEVs, and the electric vehicle technology represented by Battery

Electric Vehicles (BEVs). The study covers the top 70 countries, including those from Central &

South America, Africa, Middle East, and Asia & Pacific, in terms of their CO2 emissions in 2012

(EIA, 2016). These countries together generate 97% of the world’s total CO2 emissions and 96.7% of

the world’s total electricity. By comparing the GHG emissions from BEVs and ICEVs in these

countries, we will assess the environmental effects of BEVs from a global viewpoint. Also, by

dividing these countries into seven regional categories (Africa, Asia & Pacific, Europe, Eurasia,

5
Middle East, North America, South & Central America), we will identify some regional differences

in the environmental impacts of BEVs. For the list of countries studied and the regional divisions,

see Appendix A.

The objective of this study is to evaluate the extent to which the GHG emissions associated

with EVs change according to each country’s electricity generation mix and the differences between

the GHG emissions associated with EVs and ICEVs in each country by performing a well-to-wheel

analysis. The study utilizes the specifications of EVs and ICEVs that are currently being sold in the

market, which makes the analysis more realistic and reliable than the previous studies that used the

estimated or virtual specifications for vehicles. The findings will have significant implications on the

environmental impacts of BEVs at the country-, regional-, and global-level.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 presents the methodology and

data used for the analysis. Section 3 contains the results and discussion of the analysis. Finally,

section 4 presents the conclusions and some policy implications of this study.

2. Methodology

2.1. Analysis Method

The term “well-to-wheel” refers to the entire process of energy flow, from the mining of the energy

source to a vehicle being driven. Specifically, the well-to-wheel process of ICEVs is a seven-step

process consisting of: 1) extraction (well), 2) transport, 3) refining, 4) distribution, 5) engine

combustion, 6) power delivery system, and 7) wheel. On the other hand, the well-to-wheel process of

BEVs includes nine steps: 1) extraction (well), 2) transport, 3) refining, 4) distribution, 5) power

generation, 6) power transmission and distribution, 7) charging, 8) motor, and 9) wheel. We

implement this approach to compare the GHG emissions associated with EVs with those of ICEVs to

consider the entire supply chain of the power source for each vehicle technology.

6
 The well-to-wheel process of ICEVs largely consists of two major processes. The first is the

process of mining the energy source, transporting it, and storing the energy in the car (well-to-tank),

and the other is the process of driving the car using the stored energy (tank-to-wheel). Thus, the

GHG emissions of ICEVs from the well-to-wheel viewpoint is the sum of the GHG emissions of the

combined processes of well-to-tank and tank-to-wheel. This can be calculated by using eqn (1) below.

ICEV_GHGWtW = (GHGWtT + GHGTtW ) × FE (1)

In eqn (1), ICEV_GHGWtW is the total GHG an ICEV emits from the well-to-wheel

viewpoint and it is measured in units of g⋅CO2eq/km. The terms GHGWtT and GHGTtW represent

the total GHG emitted in the well-to-tank and tank-to-wheel processes, respectively, and are

measured in units of g⋅CO2eq/L. FE refers to the fuel efficiency of an ICEV, which is measured in

L/km.

The well-to-wheel process of BEVs consists of two major steps. The first is the process of

mining the energy source and transporting it to the power plant (well-to-power plant), and the other

is the process of transmitting the electricity to the car and driving the car using that electricity (power

plant-to-wheel). Thus, the well-to-wheel GHG emissions from a BEV is the sum of the GHG

emissions of the well-to-power plant and power plant-to-wheel processes. This can be calculated by

using eqn (2) below.

 
EV_GHGWtW ,i = ∑ Pe,i × ( GHGe,WtPP + GHGe, PPtW )  × VE
 e 
i = {U.S.,China, U.K.,Germany,France,South Korea,...} (2)
e = {Coal,Gas, Nuclear,Hydro, Wind,Biomass,Solar}

7
where, EV_GHGWtW ,i is the total GHG emitted by country i from the well-to-wheel viewpoint

and it is measured in g⋅CO2eq/km. Pe ,i is the ratio of the power source e in the electricity

generation mix of country i . GHGe ,WtPP and GHGe , PPtW are the GHG emissions by the power

source e in the well-to-power plant and power plant-to-wheel processes, respectively, and both are

measured in g⋅CO2eq/kWh. VE refers to the electricity efficiency of BEVs and is measured in

kWh/km.

2.2. Data

For this study, we chose the car models representative of different vehicular technologies to be able

to compare the GHG emissions associated with BEVs and ICEVs in multiple countries from the

well-to-wheel perspective. In order to derive a sound basis for policy recommendations, we first

defined four representative vehicle categories (subcompact, compact, full-size luxury, SUV)

according to the European Union (EU) and the U.S. standards (EC, 1999; EPA, 2016a). Vehicle

categories were selected based on the availability of competitive and popular BEV models. Then, we

chose the representative car models from each vehicle category, first by selecting BEVs for each

vehicle category, and then choosing the corresponding ICEVs. This is because BEVs have the least

number of models available in the market. Finally, one to three models of BEVs and three models of

ICEVs were selected for each category (Table 1). The classification system based on the EU and U.S.

standards and the specific fuel economy information for each car model are given in Appendix B and

Appendix C.

Table 1. Selected car models for each vehicle category

Subcompact Compact Full-sized luxury SUV
Ford Fiesta BMW 3 Series AUDI A8 BMW X6
ICEV KIA Rio Hyundai i30 BMW 7 Series Porsche Cayenne
Volkswagen Polo Volkswagen Golf JAGUAR XJ VOLVO XC90

8
 KIA Soul
BMW i3
BEV Nissan Leaf Tesla Model S Tesla Model X
Volkswagen e-Golf
Renault Zoe

The data needed to calculate the GHG emissions of ICEVs are the fuel economy data and the

emission factor for each fuel type (gasoline and diesel). For the fuel economy data, we used the

imperial combined fuel consumption data from a single independent source, the Vehicle Certification

Agency (VCA) 1, which is an executive government agency of the United Kingdom Department for

Transport. The VCA provides the fuel economy data (imperial fuel consumption) for various types of

vehicles, including ICEVs (diesel-based and gasoline-based) and BEVs that will allow us to compare

the fuel economy of each vehicle in the same line 2.

For the emission factors for ICEVs, we used JEC’s well-to-wheel CO2-equivalent emissions

data (JRC, 2014), which is probably the newest and the most reliable source available. JEC is a

research collaboration of JRC (Joint Research Center of European Commission), EUCAR (European

Council for Automotive R&D), and CONCAWE (CONservation of Clean Air and Water in Europe).

According to JEC, the total value of the well-to-wheel GHG emissions is 3,241.3 g⋅CO2eq/L (well-to-

tank: 2,676.9, tank-to-wheel: 564.4) for diesel fuel and 2,778.2 g⋅CO2eq/L (well-to-tank: 2,314.4,

tank-to-wheel: 463.8) for gasoline fuel. We used these emission factors to calculate GHG emissions

for ICEVs and HEVs.

There are two sets of data necessary to calculate the well-to-wheel GHG emissions of BEVs

using eqn (2). First is the GHG emission data of each power source in the well-to-wheel process, and

the other is the electricity generation mix data for each country. The GHG emissions data of each

power source in the well-to-wheel process are presented in Table 2. We utilized Turconi et al.

1
We have also considered using other databases from different sources, such as US EPA. However, US EPA’s database
severely lacks data for diesel fuel vehicles (since not many diesel ICEVs are being sold in US), which makes it not
appropriate for this study.
2
Fuel economy data for every vehicles are collected from the VCA except for Tesla’s Model X. This is because Model
X is a new model and its fuel economy data is not available in VCA yet. Therefore, we approximated the fuel economy
of Model X using the fuel economy data of Tesla Model S from the VCA and official fuel economy data of Model S and
Model X provided by Tesla homepage

9
(2013)’s review of 167 previous studies involving the life cycle assessment of GHG emissions

related to the power sources as our data source.

Table 2. GHG emissions (g⋅CO2eq/kWh) for each power source in the well-to-wheel process
The number of data sources Min Median Max Average
Coal 43 660 960 1,370 942.33
Natural gas 23 380 490 1,000 533.17
Oil 10 530 779 890 773.80
Nuclear 10 3.1 7.3 35 12.23
Hydropower 12 2 4.9 20 8.22
Solar PV 22 13 53 190 65.05
Wind 22 3 12 41 17.63
Biomass 25 1 39 130 51.02
Source: Turconi et al. (2013)

The electricity generation mix data used to calculate the well-to-wheel GHG emissions for

each country are listed in Table 3. Due to space limitations, data for 20 countries are presented in

Table 3, but in the analysis, the electricity generation mix of 70 countries was used.

10
Table 3. Electricity generation mix in each country (2014)
Total Net
Natural
Electricity Coal Oil Nuclear Hydro Wind Biomass Solar
Country Gas
(%) (%)
Generation (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)
(Billion kWh)
China 4,768 72 2 0 3 20 1 3 0
United
4,048 38 30 1 19 6 4 2 0
States
India 1,052 72 8 1 3 12 3 0 1
Russia 1,012 14 49 3 17 17 0 0 0
Japan 966 30 43 12 0 8 1 4 2
Germany 585 45 10 2 16 3 10 8 6
Korea,
500 42 23 4 29 1 0 0 0
South
Iran 239 0 65 27 2 6 0 0 0
Saudi
255 0 62 38 0 0 0 0 0
Arabia
Canada 616 12 10 1 16 58 2 1 0
Brazil 538 3 9 4 3 69 1 11 0
United
336 32 30 1 19 2 8 7 1
Kingdom
South
239 92 0 1 6 0 0 0 0
Africa
Indonesia 185 49 20 23 0 7 0 0 0
Mexico 279 11 49 19 3 14 2 1 0
Australia 235 67 20 1 0 6 4 1 1
France 533 3 3 1 76 11 3 1 1
Ukraine 187 35 10 0 51 4 0 0 0
Egypt 155 0 73 17 0 9 1 0 0
Norway 145 0 2 0 0 94 2 1 1
Source: IEA (2015b), EIA (2015b), World Bank (2016)

3. Results and discussion

3.1. GHG emissions of ICEVs

First, using the fuel economy data of the models selected for each vehicle category (Appendix C) and

the GHG emission factors for gasoline and diesel fuel presented in section 2.2 (JRC, 2014), we

calculated the amount of GHG emissions for each vehicle category using eqn (1). The results

presented in Table 4 show that ICEVs that use gasoline have higher GHG emissions than those using

11
diesel on average. Even though gasoline vehicles emit less GHG than diesel vehicles for the same

amount of fuel combusted, the fuel efficiency of diesel engines is much higher than gasoline engine.

Table 4. Well-to-wheel GHG emissions (g⋅CO2eq/kWh) of ICEVs

Vehicle category Fuel type Well-to-tank Tank-to-wheel Well-to-wheel
Gasoline 84.5 16.9 101.4
Subcompact
Diesel 74.2 15.6 89.8
Gasoline 99.7 20.0 119.7
Compact
Diesel 79.4 16.7 96.1
Gasoline 156.2 31.3 187.5
Full-size luxury
Diesel 118.2 24.9 143.1
Gasoline 175.0 35.1 210.1
SUV
Diesel 135.9 28.7 164.6
Note: For each vehicle category, the average value is presented if multiple models are considered.

3.2. GHG emissions of BEVs when the electricity is supplied by a sole power source

We first calculate the GHG emissions of BEVs when the electricity is supplied by a sole power

source to compare it with the emissions of ICEVs. The specifications of the BEVs in Appendix C

and the GHG emissions data of the Well-to-Wheel processes in Table 2 enable us to calculate the

GHG emissions associated with BEVs when the electricity is supplied exclusively by each power

source. For the emissions data of each power source, the median value in Table 2 was used. The

results are presented in Table 5.

Table 5. GHG emissions (g⋅CO2eq/km) of BEVs driven with electricity generated solely with
each power source
Natural
Coal Oil Nuclear Hydro Wind Biomass Solar
Gas
Subcompact car 142.0 72.5 115.2 1.1 0.7 1.8 5.8 7.8
Compact car 123.0 62.8 99.8 0.9 0.6 1.5 5.0 6.8
Full-size luxury car 180.8 92.3 146.7 1.4 0.9 2.3 7.3 10.0
SUV 206.8 105.5 167.8 1.6 1.1 2.6 8.4 11.4
Note: GHG emissions of BEVs in bold is higher than corresponding ICEV using diesel. GHG emissions of BEVs in
underline is higher than corresponding ICEV using gasoline.

The results show that the GHG emissions associated with BEVs using electricity generated

by fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and oil considerably exceeds the amount of GHGs emitted

when the electricity is generated by other power sources.

12
 The GHG emissions of ICEVs (both using gasoline and diesel) were higher than those of

BEVs using electricity generated by natural gas, nuclear, and renewable energy sources in all four

vehicle categories. Therefore, if the electricity for BEVs is generated by natural gas, nuclear, or

renewable energy sources, BEVs have less negative impacts on the environment than ICEVs.

However, BEVs that use electricity generated by coal or oil always had higher GHG

emissions than diesel ICEVs. BEVs using electricity generated by coal in subcompact and compact

car categories and BEVs using electricity generated by oil in the subcompact car category had higher

emissions than their corresponding gasoline-based ICEVs. Therefore, one should not assume that

BEVs are more environmentally friendly (in terms of GHG emissions) than ICEVs without

considering the electricity generation mix.

Furthermore, using the results in Table 5, we can estimate the GHG emissions of BEVs

based on the marginal electricity mix if the last power plant dispatched in a given hour for a specific

region is known. For example, in California, marginal electricity generators are usually natural gas-

fired, so we know that GHG emissions of BEVs based on the marginal electricity mix in California

come from natural gas-fired power plants (McCarthy and Yang, 2010).

3.3. GHG emissions of BEVs considering each country’s electricity generation mix

We calculated the GHG emissions of BEVs by considering the electricity generation mix of each

country using the data presented in Table 2 and Table 3, in order to compare it with the GHG

emissions of the corresponding ICEVs for each category (Table 4). The results for BEVs for 20

representative countries, the average value of each region, and the average of all 70 countries are

presented in Table 6. For each case, the values calculated using the median emission factors from

Table 2 are presented at the top and values calculated using the minimum and maximum emission

factor values are presented inside the parentheses.

13
Table 6. GHG emissions (g⋅CO2eq/km) of BEVs considering generation mix
Region Country Subcompact Compact Full-size luxury SUV
78.1 a 67.6 99.3 113.6
Global average (70 countries)
(54.9 b, 121.3 c) (47.5, 105.0) (69.8, 154.3) (79.9, 176.5)
102.7 88.9 130.7 149.5
China
(70.6, 148.3) (61.1, 128.4) (89.8, 188.7) (102.7, 215.8)
108.1 93.6 137.5 157.3
India
(74.7, 158.1) (64.7, 136.9) (95.1, 201.1) (108.8, 230.1)
88.1 76.3 112.1 128.2
Japan
(63.0, 141.9) (54.5, 122.9) (80.2, 180.5) (91.7, 206.5)
Asia & Pacific
82.7 71.6 105.2 120.4
South Korea
(58.2, 128.0) (50.4, 110.8) (74.1, 162.9) (84.7, 186.3)
110.7 95.8 140.8 161.1
Indonesia
(77.2, 159.5) (66.8, 138.0) (98.2, 202.9) (112.3, 232.1)
111.1 96.2 141.3 161.7
Australia
(77.5, 167.7) (67.1, 145.2) (98.7, 213.3) (112.9, 244.0)
98.7 85.4 125.5 143.6
Asia & Pacific average (17 countries)
(68.5, 146.3) (59.3, 126.6) (87.2, 186.1) (99.7, 212.9)
77.3 67.0 98.4 112.6
United States
(54.9, 124.6) (47.5, 107.8) (69.8, 158.5) (79.9, 181,3)
North America
26.1 22.6 33.3 38.0
Canada
(18.4, 43.3) (15.9, 37.5) (23.4, 55.1) (26.8, 63.0)
70.6 61.1 89.8 102.7
North America average (2 countries)
(50.1, 113.8) (43.4, 98.5) (63.7, 144.8) (72.9, 165.7)
74.8 64.8 95.2 108.9
Germany
(51.5, 113.4) (44.6, 98.2) (65.5, 144.3) (74.9, 165.1)
69.2 59.9 88.1 100.7
United Kingdom
(49.1, 113.8) (42.5, 98.5) (62.4, 144.7) (71.4, 165.6)
Europe
8.7 7.5 11.1 12.7
France
(5.8, 16.8) (5.1, 14.6) (7.4, 21.4) (8.5, 24.5)
2.3 2.0 2.9 3.4
Norway
(1.4, 6.3) (1.3, 5.5) (1.8, 8.1) (2.1, 9.2)
51.0 44.1 64.8 74.2
Europe average (22 countries)
(35.7, 82.0) (30.9, 71.0) (45.4, 104.3) (51.9, 119.3)
59.2 51.2 75.3 86.1
Russia
(43.7, 106.2) (37.8, 92.0) (55.6, 135.2) (63.6, 154.6)
Eurasia
57.6 49.8 73.2 83.8
Ukraine
(40.1, 88.5) (34.7, 76.6) (51.0, 112.6) (58.3, 128.8)
63.2 54.7 80.4 91.9
Eurasia average (6 countries)
(46.1, 109.9) (39.9, 95.1) (58.7, 139.8) (67.1, 159.9)
78.3 67.8 99.7 114.0
Iran
(57.8, 132.0) (50.0, 114.3) (73.5, 168.0) (84.1, 192.2)
Middle East
88.8 76.9 112.9 129.2
Saudi Arabia
(64.7, 141.8) (56.0, 122.8) (82.3, 180.4) (94.1, 206.4)
83.9 72.6 106.7 122.1
Middle East average (9 countries)
(61.8, 141.3) (53.5, 122.3) (78.6, 179.8) (89.9, 205.7)
16.6 14.4 21.1 24.1
Brazil
(11.4, 29.0) (9.8, 25.1) (14.5, 37.0) (16.5, 42.3)
Central & South America
74.0 64.1 94.2 107.7
Mexico
(53.8, 122.2) (46.6, 105.8) (68.5, 155.5) (78.4, 177.9)
Central & South America average 39.1 33.9 49.8 56.9
(8 countries) (28.1, 65.6) (24.3, 56.8) (35.7, 83.5) (40.9, 95.5)
133.4 115.5 169.7 194.1
South Africa
(91.7, 190.2) (79.4, 164.7) (116.6, 242.0) (133.4, 276.8)
Africa
72.6 62.9 92.4 105.7
Egypt
(54.4, 130.8) (47.1, 113.2) (69.2, 166.4) (79.2, 190.3)
102.4 88.6 130.2 149.0
Africa average (6 countries)
(72.7, 159.7) (62.9, 138.2) (92.5, 203.1) (105.8, 232.4)
Gasoline ICEV 101.4 119.7 187.5 210.1
Diesel ICEV 89.8 96.1 143.1 164.6
a
Value using the median emission factor, b value using the minimum emission factor, c value using the maximum emission factor
d
Average values presented in this table are weighted average by the country’s total net electricity generation
e
Bold: Higher than corresponding ICEV using diesel
f
Underline: Higher than corresponding ICEV using gasoline

Considering the results calculated using the median emission factors for power sources used

14
for generation, BEVs generally have lower GHG emissions than their corresponding ICEVs. This

GHG reduction effect was the largest in the full-size luxury category and the smallest in the

subcompact category (full-size luxury > SUV > compact > subcompact). Excluding the subcompact

category, BEVs had less GHG emissions than ICEVs in most countries and regions. Considering the

results that used the maximum emission factors (right side of the parenthesis for each case), there are

quite a few cases of BEVs that had higher GHG emissions than their corresponding diesel ICEVs

(marked with bold) or even gasoline ICEVs (marked with underline). The rest of this section will

focus on the results of the country-level, regional-level, and global-level emissions. Unless

mentioned otherwise, the descriptions will be based on the results that used the median emission

factors.

The GHG emissions calculated for BEVs for each country are strongly related to the

electricity generation mix of the country. The GHG emissions calculated for BEVs were the highest

in South Africa, which has a high ratio of fossil fuels (93%) in its electricity generation mix,

specifically 102.7 to 149.5 g⋅CO2eq/km. Similarly, countries with high fossil fuel ratios in their

generation mix such as Australia (88%), India (81%), and China (74%) also had high GHG emissions.

However, for countries such as Russia, which has 66% fossil fuels in their mix, GHG emissions were

lower because the majority of the fossil fuels used was natural gas, which emits much less GHG than

coal or oil.

On the other hand, countries with high nuclear power and renewable energy ratios in their

generation mix had lower GHG emissions for BEVs. For countries like Norway (94% hydropower),

Canada (58% hydropower), and France (76% nuclear power), the GHG emissions calculated for

BEVs were considerably lower than for both types of ICEVs. In these countries, BEVs are certainly

a more viable option to reduce the GHG emissions than traditional ICEVs. Norway had the lowest

GHG emissions for BEVs, 2.3 to 3.4 g⋅CO2eq/km, which is less than 10% of GHG emitted by the

corresponding ICEVs. In comparison, BEVs in South Africa were associated with about 40 times

15
higher GHG emissions than BEVs in Norway. This emphasizes the importance of an environmentally

friendly electricity generation mix to reduce the GHG emissions from BEVs. The results suggesting

that the GHG emissions from BEVs for different countries vary considerably according to their

electricity generation mix are in agreement with the results of the previous studies (Faria et al. 2013;

Doucette and McCulloch 2011; Varga 2013).

In addition to the country-level analysis, we conducted a regional-level analysis by dividing

70 countries into 7 regional categories to determine the electricity generation mix of each region and

ascertain the regional characteristics. Studying the regional characteristics is important because

different regions have different resources and environmental characteristics. For example, Central &

South America have abundant natural gas reserves and its natural environment is appropriate for

electricity generation with alternative power sources such as hydropower. In fact, about half of

Central & South America’s electricity is produced by hydroelectric power plants (World Bank, 2016).

The results of the regional-level analysis showed significant differences in GHG emissions of BEVs

for each vehicle category for each region (Figure 1). Among seven regions, Africa ranked worst and

Central & South America ranked first in terms of GHG reductions by BEVs. Specifically, GHGs

associated with BEVs were less in all vehicle categories, regardless of the emission factors used in

South & Central America and Europe. For the other regions, emissions associated with BEVs

compared to ICEVs varied by the car category and the emission factor used. For the full-size luxury

vehicle category, BEVs had lower GHG emissions than the corresponding gasoline ICEVs regardless

of the emission factors in all regions except Africa. On the other hand, for the subcompact vehicle

category, Europe and Central & South America were the only regions with lower GHG emissions

from BEVs than gasoline ICEVs.

16
(1.1) Sub-compact (1.2) Compact

(1.3) Full-size luxury (1.4) SUV

Figure 1.

17
 On the global-level, the results for BEVs with median emission factors revealed significantly

lower GHG emissions compared to ICEVs (both diesel and gasoline). However, the results differ by

the choice of the emission factor. For the subcompact category, GHG emissions for both types of

ICEVs are inside the range of emissions for BEVs depending on the choice of the emission factor

(Figure 2). Therefore, on the global scale, for this category, BEVs not necessarily have a better GHG

reduction effect compared to ICEVs (both gasoline and diesel) depending on the emission factor.

However, for the other three vehicle categories, gasoline ICEVs had higher GHG emissions than

BEVs even if the maximum emission factor was used. Globally, for the compact, full-size luxury,

and SUV vehicle categories, lower GHG emissions were attributed to BEVs than to gasoline ICEVs

regardless of the choice of emission factor, while diesel ICEVs may or may not have lower GHG

emissions than BEVs depending on the emission factor.

Figure 2.

18
4. Conclusions and Policy Implications

This study analyzed the differences in GHG emissions associated with BEVs in multiple countries

according to their electricity generation mix from a Well-to-Wheel perspective, and compared these

results with the GHG emissions of ICEVs. We selected four comparable vehicle types that represent

BEVs and ICEVs; subcompact, compact, full-size luxury, and SUV, since these are the categories

where BEVs are most competitive on. Then, the representative car models were selected for each

vehicle category for the analysis.

First, GHG emissions from ICEVs were calculated for the Well-to-Wheel process. Then, we

analyzed how much GHG emissions were associated with BEVs when the electricity is generated

solely by each power source (coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear or renewables) for the Well-to-Wheel

process. The results showed that the GHG emissions attributed to BEVs that use electricity generated

by fossil fuels were considerably higher than the emissions attributed to BEVs that use electricity

generated by nuclear or renewable sources. We also established that BEVs that use electricity

generated with coal or oil may be associated with higher GHG emissions than ICEVs. These findings

confirm that it is necessary to consider the electricity generation mix to study the environmental

impacts of BEVs versus ICEVs.

Next, we calculated the GHG emissions associated with BEVs for each country based on its

electricity generation mix and compared it with those from the ICEVs of the same type. The results

show that in general, the GHG emissions from BEVs in countries with a high fossil fuel ratio

(especially coal and oil) in their electricity generation mix were higher, and the difference between

the countries was quite large. Similar results were observed for the regional-level analysis.

Finally, we analyzed the global effects of BEV and ICEV technologies on GHG emissions

by taking the average of the GHG emissions from BEVs for 70 countries weighted by their total net

electricity generation. The results showed that for the subcompact category, BEVs may or may not be

associated with lower GHG emissions depending on the choice of the emission factors. On the other

19
hand, for the other three categories, gasoline ICEVs had higher GHG emissions than BEVs

regardless of the emission factors chosen.

BEVs have recently been attracting attention as a solution capable of reducing GHG

emissions and alleviating problems such as global warming. However, the trend of downsizing cars

running on gasoline and diesel (ICEVs) together with the advances in exhaust reduction technologies

have considerably reduced the GHG emissions of ICEVs. In countries with high coal dependency in

their electricity generation mix, BEVs may be associated with increased emissions of GHGs

compared to the conventional ICEVs. Therefore, the ratio of coal in the electricity generation mix

should be lowered for the BEVs to be effective in alleviating GHG emission problems. The United

States is currently aiming to lower its dependency on coal and to increase the ratio of power sources

with low or no GHG emissions with its Clean Power Plan (EPA, 2016b). China also announced a

plan to reduce the ratio of coal in its electricity generation mix to below 65% by 2017 (C2ES, 2015).

Furthermore, China has been implementing the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) since 2012, and

has undertaken to increase the ratio of renewables in its electricity generation mix by 15% by 2020

(RENE21, 2013). In the European Union (EU), EU6 3, which strictly regulates tail emissions, is in

effect. Moreover, the EU has decided to increase the ratio of renewables in their electricity

generation mix by more than 27% by 2030 (EC, 2014). The continued market penetration of BEVs,

together with enthusiastic governmental policies to improve the electricity generation mix will

significantly enhance the beneficial environmental effects of BEVs. For example, Norway is one of

the most enthusiastic countries in promoting EVs. In 2014, their annual BEV sale was 10% of total

vehicle sales. Since Norway is a country with an environmentally friendly generation mix, they can

achieve an enormous amount of GHG reductions from BEVs.

Based on the results of this study we recommend a detailed review to confirm whether BEVs

3
EU6 is an emissions regulation for vehicles being driven in EU. Compliance of a vehicle is determined by running the
vehicle in a standardized test cycle and checking its emissions. Non-compliant vehicles cannot be sold in the EU. EU6
has been in effect since September 2014.

20
would ultimately reduce GHG emissions. GHG emission reductions may vary by the electricity

generation mix of each country, the choice of emission factors for each power source, vehicle type,

and fuel type of the competing ICEVs. Thus, enabling BEVs to practically contribute to mitigating

global warming and air pollution would require the ratio of fossil fuels (especially coal) in the

electricity generation mix to be lowered. In other words, the beneficial environmental effects of EVs

will be boosted when combined with governments’ strong will to lower the coal dependency in their

electricity generation mix.

Moreover, since the ability of BEVs to reduce GHG emissions compared to that of ICEVs

varies by vehicle category, separate policies should be considered for different types of vehicles. For

example, since the GHG emission reduction effect of BEVs compared to the corresponding ICEVs is

the smallest for the subcompact category, promotional efforts (subsidies, tax incentives) can focus

more on other vehicle categories where the GHG reduction effect of BEV is greater. Also, different

regulations or policies should be applied to gasoline and diesel fuel vehicles reflecting their distinct

effect on the environment. The results of this study suggest that GHG emissions for a particular

distance driven are the highest for gasoline-based ICEVs, which always had higher emissions than

diesel-based ICEVs in the analysis, and for most cases had higher GHG emissions than BEVs

regardless of the emission factor chosen. Therefore, countries whose objective is to reduce GHG

emissions from their transport sector could consider discouraging the purchase of gasoline fuel

vehicles and encouraging the other types of vehicles analyzed in this study.

21
Appendix A. List of countries considered and their regional division

Region (Number of Countries) Countries

China, India, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Australia, Taiwan,
Asia & Pacific (17) Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Pakistan, Vietnam, Hong Kong,
Philippines, North Korea, Bangladesh, New Zealand
North America (2) United States, Canada
Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, France, Spain, Turkey, Poland,
Netherlands, Belgium, Czech Republic, Greece, Romania,
Europe (22)
Austria, Portugal, Sweden, Bulgaria, Hungary, Finland,
Switzerland, Serbia, Norway, Denmark
Eurasia (6) Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Belarus, Turkmenistan
Iran, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar,
Middle East (9)
Israel, Oman, Syria
Brazil, Mexico, Argentina, Venezuela, Chile, Colombia, Peru,
Central & South America (8)
Trinidad and Tobago
Africa (6) South Africa, Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Morocco

22
Appendix B. Car classifications based on European and US standards
Vehicle Category Euro Market Segment* US EPA Size Class**
Subcompact B-segment small cars Subcompact
Compact C-segment medium cars Compact
Full-size luxury F-segment luxury cars N/A
SUV J-segment sport utility cars Standard sport utility vehicle
*Source: EC (1999), **Source: EPA (2016a)

23
Appendix C. Selected models and their fuel economy
BEV ICEV
BEV Fuel Gasoline Fuel Diesel Fuel
Vehicle category
Model Economy Model Economy Economy
(km/kWh) (km/L) (km/L)
KIA Soul 6.76 Ford Fiesta 28.3 38.0
Nissan Leaf 6.60 KIA Rio 25.8 36.8
Subcompact
Volkswagen
Renault Zoe 6.92 29.6 33.8
Polo
BMW 3
22.5 31.9
BMW i3 7.72 Series
Compact Hyundai i30 20.3 33.7
Volkswagen Volkswagen
7.89 28.3 35.7
e-Golf Golf
AUDI A8 12.9 21.3
BMW 7
Full-size luxury Tesla Model S 5.31 17.8 25.8
Series
JAGUAR XJ 14.4 21.3
BMW X6 12.5 20.3
Porsche
Tesla Model 12.3 17.8
SUV 4.64 Cayenne
X
VOLVO
15.2 21.3
XC90
Source: VCA (2016)

24
Figure Captions

Figure 1. GHG emissions of each region by each vehicle category

Figure 2. Global GHG emissions by each vehicle category

25
References

Bickert, S., Kampker, A., Greger, D., 2015. Developments of CO2-emissions and costs for small

electric and combustion engine vehicles in Germany. Transportation Research Part D:

Transport and Environment 36, 138-151.

Bishop, J.D.K., Martin, N.P.D., Boies, A.M., 2014. Cost-effectiveness of alternative powertrains for

reduced energy use and CO2 emissions in passenger vehicles. Appl. Energ. 124, 44–61.

C2ES, 2015. China’s Climate and Energy Policies. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES).

Donateo, T., Licci, F., D’Elia, A., Colangelo, G., Laforgia, D., Ciancarelli, F., 2015. Evaluation of

emissions of CO2 and air pollutants from electric vehicles in Italian cities. Appl. Energ.

article in press.

Doucette, R.T., McCulloch, M.D., 2011. Modeling the CO2 emissions from battery electric vehicles

given the power generation mixes of different countries. Energ. Policy 39, 803–811.

EC, 1999. Regulation (EEC) No4064/89 Merger Procedure: Article 6(1)(b) non-opposition,

European Commission (EC).

EC, 2014. A Policy Framework for climate and energy in the period from 2020 to 2030. European

Commission (EC). Brussels, Belgium.

EIA, 2015a. How much carbon dioxide is produced per kilowatthour when generating electricity

with fossil fuels? Energy Information Administration (EIA). Washington DC, USA.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11 (Accessed: September 24, 2015)

EIA, 2015b. International Energy Statistics. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Washington

DC, USA.

http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IeDIndex3.cfm?tid=2&eyid=2012&syid=2012&revers

eAxes=0&cid=&cid=r1&cid=r2&cid=r3&cid=r4&cid=r5&cid=r6&cid=r7&cid=ww&pid=all

types&aid=12&unit=BKWH&updateB=UPDATE (Accessed: September 24, 2015)

EIA, 2016. International Energy Statistics. Energy Information Administration (EIA). Washington

26
 DC, USA.

https://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=2&aid=12 (Accessed:

March 31, 2016)

EPA, 2009. Clean Energy – eGRID. US Environmental Protection Agency.

http://www.epa.gov/energy/energy-resources/egrid/index.html. (Accessed: August 24, 2016)

EPA, 2016a. EPA Size Class. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byclass/2016ClassList.shtml

EPA, 2016b. Clean Power Plan. US Environmental Protection Agency.

https://www.epa.gov/cleanpowerplan/

Faria, R., Marques, P., Moura, P., Freire, F., Delgado, J., de Almeida, A.T., 2013. Impact of the

electricity mix and use profile in the life-cycle assessment of electric vehicles. Renew. & Sust.

Energ. Rev. 24, 271-287.

Freire, F, Marques, P., 2012. Electric vehicles in Portugal: an integrated energy, greenhouse gas and

cost life-cycle analysis. In: 2012 IEEE international symposium on sustainable systems and

technology (ISSST), pp. 1–6.

Granvskii, M., Dincer, I., Rosen, M.A., 2006. Economic and environmental comparison of

conventional, hybrid, electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. J. Power Sources 159, 1186–

1893.

Hadley S.W., Tsvetkova A.A., 2009. Potential impacts of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles on regional

power generation. The Electricity Journal 22(10), 56-68.

Hawkins, T. R., Singh, B., Majeau‐Bettez, G., Strømman, A. H., 2013. Comparative environmental

life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles. J. Ind. Ecol. 17, 53-64.

Helms, H., Pehnt, M., Lambrecht, U., Liebich, A., 2010. Electric vehicle and plug-in hybrid energy

efficiency and life cycle emissions. In: 18th International symposium transport and air

pollution: Session 3: Electro and Hybrid Vehicles.

27
Huo, H., Wu, Y., Wang, M., 2009. Total versus urban: well-to-wheel assessment of criteria pollutant

emissions from various vehicle/fuel systems. Atmos. Environ. 43, 1796–1804.

Huo, H., Cai, H., Zhang, Q., Liu, F., He, K., 2015. Life-cycle assessment of greenhouse gas and air

emissions of electric vehicles: A comparison between China and the US. Atmos. Environ. 108,

107-116.

IEA, 2013. Global EV outlook: understanding the electric vehicle landscape to 2020. International

Energy Agency(IEA), Paris, France.

IEA, 2015a. CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion – 2015 edition. International Energy Agency

(IEA), Paris, France,

IEA, 2015b. Electricity Information. International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris, France.

IEA, 2015c. Global EV outlook 2015. International Energy Agency(IEA), Paris, France.

IEA, 2016. World: Balances for 2013. International Energy Agency(IEA), Paris, France.

http://www.iea.org/statistics/statisticssearch/report/?year=2013&country=WORLD&product=

Balances (Accessed: March 20, 2016)

JD POWER, 2013. The Changing Landscape of the Global Automotive Industry, McGraw Hill

Financial, Westlake Village, California, USA.

Jochem, P., Doll, C., Fichtner, W., 2016. External costs of electric vehicles. Transportation Research

Part D: Transport and Environment 42, 60-76.

JRC, 2014. Well-to-Wheels Report Version 4.a: JEC Well-To-Wheels Analysis “Well-to-Wheels

Analysis of Future Automotive Fuels and Powertrains in the European Context”. Joint

Research Center (JRC) of European Commission.

Larminie, J., Lowry, J., 2003. Electric vehicle technology explained. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.,

England.

McCarthy, R., Yang, C., 2010. Determining marginal electricity for near-term plug-in and fuel cell

vehicle demands in California: Impacts on vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. Journal of

28
 Power Sources 195(7), 2099-2109.

Nichols, B. G., Kockelman, K. M., Reiter, M., 2015. Air quality impacts of electric vehicle adoption

in Texas. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 34, 208-218.

Nilsson, M., 2011. Electric vehicles, the phenomenon of range anxiety. ElVIRE Consortium,

Lindholmen Science Park, Sweden.

http://www.elvire.eu/IMG/pdf/The_phenomenon_of_range_anxiety_ELVIRE.pdf

Onat, N.C., Kucukvar, M., Tatari, O., 2015. Conventional, hybrid, plug-in hybrid or electric

vehicles? State-based comparative carbon and energy footprint analysis in the United States.

Appl. Energ. 150, 36-49.

Rangaraju, S., De Vroey, L., Messagie, M., Mertens, J., Van Mierlo, J., 2015. Impacts of electricity

mix, charging profile, and driving behavior on the emissions performance of battery electric

vehicles: A Belgian case study. Applied Energy 148, 496-505.

REN21: Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century, 2013. Renewables 2013: Global

Status Report. Available at

http://www.ren21.net/Portals/0/documents/Resources/GSR/2013/GSR2013_lowres.pdf.

Tamayao, M. A. M., Michalek, J. J., Hendrickson, C., Azevedo, I. M., 2015. Regional variability and

uncertainty of electric vehicle life cycle CO2 emissions across the United States.

Environmental Science & Technology 49(14), 8844-8855.

Thomas C.E.S., 2012. US marginal electricity grid mixes and EV greenhouse gas emissions. Int. J.

Hydrogen Energ. 37, 19231–40.

Tomic, J., Kempton, W., 2007. Using fleets of electric-drive vehicles for grid support. J. Power

Sources 168, 459–68.

Turconi, R., Boldrin, A., Astrup, T., 2013. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity generation

technologies: overview, comparability and limitations. Renew. & Sust. Energ. Rev. 28, 555-

565.

29
 Varga, B.O., 2013. Electric vehicles, primary energy sources and CO2 emissions: Romanian case

study. Energy 49, 61-70.

VCA, 2016. Car fuel data, CO2 and vehicle tax tools. Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA)

http://carfueldata.dft.gov.uk/ (Accessed: August 15, 2016)

Wikström, M., Hansson, L., Alvfors, P., 2014. Socio-technical experiences from electric vehicle

utilization in commercial fleets. Appl. Energ. 123, 82–93.

World Bank, 2016. World Development Indicators. World Bank, Washington DC, USA.

Wu, Y., Wang, M.Q., Sharer, P.B., Rousseau, A., 2007. Well-to-wheels results of energy use,

greenhouse gas emissions and criteria air pollutant emissions of selected vehicle/fuel systems.

SAE 2006 Transactions (Journal of Engines), Paper No. 2006-01-0377.

30

View publication stats