State Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk Assessment, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing, 100012, China; State Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Eco-Industry, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing, 100012, China.
State Key Laboratory of Environmental Criteria and Risk Assessment, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing, 100012, China; State Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Eco-Industry, Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing, 100012, China; Faculty of Science, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia.
J Environ Manage. 2024 Apr;356:120648. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120648. Epub 2024 Mar 19.
Profound worldwide fleet electrification is thought to be the primary route for achieving the target of carbon neutrality. However, when and how electrification can help mitigate environmental impacts and carbon emissions in the transport sector remains unclear. Herein, the overall life-cycle environmental impacts and carbon saving range of two typical A-class vehicles in China, including electric vehicle (EV) and internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV), were quantified by the life cycle assessment model for endpoint damage with localization parameters. The results showed that the EV outperformed the ICEV for the total environment impact after a travel distance of 39,153 km and for carbon emissions after 32,292 km. The ICEV was more carbon-friendly only when the driving distance was less than 3229 km/a. Considering a full lifespan travel distance of 150,000 km, the whole life-cycle average environmental impacts of EV and ICEV were calculated as 8.6 and 17.5 mPt/km, respectively, but the EV had 2.3 times higher impacts than the ICEV in the production phase. In addition, the EV unit carbon emission was 140 g/km, 46.8% lower than that of the ICEV. Finally, three potential reduction scenarios were considered: cleaner power mix, energy efficiency improvement and composite scenario. These scenarios contributed 19.1%, 13.0% and 32.1% reductions, respectively. However, achieving carbon peak and neutrality goals in China remains a great challenge unless fossil fuels are replaced by renewable energy. The research can provide scientific reference for the method and practice of emission reduction link identification, eco-driving choice and emission reduction path formulation.
深度的全球车队电气化被认为是实现碳中和目标的主要途径。然而，电气化在何时以及如何帮助减轻交通运输部门的环境影响和碳排放仍不清楚。在此，通过具有本地化参数的终点损害生命周期评估模型，量化了中国两款典型 A 级车（包括电动汽车 (EV) 和内燃机汽车 (ICEV)）的全生命周期环境影响和碳减排范围。结果表明，在行驶 39153 公里后，EV 在总环境影响方面优于 ICEV，在行驶 32292 公里后在碳排放量方面优于 ICEV。只有当行驶距离小于 3229 公里/年时，ICEV 才更具碳友好性。考虑到 150000 公里的全生命周期行驶距离，EV 和 ICEV 的全生命周期平均环境影响分别计算为 8.6 和 17.5 mPt/km，但在生产阶段，EV 的影响比 ICEV 高 2.3 倍。此外，EV 的单位碳排放量为 140g/km，比 ICEV 低 46.8%。最后，考虑了三个潜在的减排情景：更清洁的电源组合、提高能源效率和综合情景。这些情景分别贡献了 19.1%、13.0%和 32.1%的减排量。然而，除非化石燃料被可再生能源取代，否则中国要实现碳峰值和碳中和目标仍将面临巨大挑战。该研究可为减排环节识别、生态驾驶选择和减排路径制定等方法和实践提供科学参考。
