Scribd
Upload
13 views4 pages

Electric Cars

Uploaded by

parcerosantiago2
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
13 views4 pages

Electric Cars

Uploaded by

parcerosantiago2
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Report on the use of electric cars

By: Odidiano Jeywezk

INTRODUCTION:
After decades of inaction and denial, the need to reduce environmental impact
is now unmistakable. We are at a turning point where regulations are
increasingly stringent and affect both producers and consumers. In addition to
institutional changes, growing collective awareness drives demand for
environmentally responsible products.

The transportation sector, particularly road transport, is responsible for 72% of


total CO2 emissions from various transport options, according to the European
Parliament. Cars generate 60.7% of these emissions, followed by heavy
vehicles (26.2%) and vans (11.9%). Motorcycles account for the remaining
emissions (European Parliament, 2019).

The predictive maintenance process for Electric Vehicles (EVs) is substantially


reduced compared to Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles (ICEVs). Both require
periodic checks on:

- Brake fluid and coolant

- Cabin air filter

However, EVs do not require:

- Oil changes (engine or transmission)

- Oil, air, and fuel filters

- Timing belts and accessory components

Additionally, EV batteries require no maintenance, as manufacturers offer


leasing schemes or long-term warranties. This reduces EV maintenance by
approximately 40% compared to ICEVs (Raustad 2017).
Regarding corrective maintenance, associated with potential breakdowns, EVs
have a significant advantage. Electric motors are simpler and more robust than
traditional combustion engines, avoiding issues like:

- Timing belt failures

- Injector problems

- Catalyst failures

- Mass airflow sensor issues

Vehicle manufacturers will ensure and, where necessary, finance the


appropriate collection and treatment of vehicles at the end of their useful life.
Specifically, when a vehicle reaches the end of its useful life and has a negative
market value, the vehicle manufacturer will cover the cost or take direct
responsibility for the vehicle’s treatment.

PROBLEMATIC:

However, developing new technologies like electric vehicles is not without


environmental impact throughout their lifecycle, from component
manufacturing to end-of-life disposal and recycling. Electric vehicle production
requires raw materials (steel, aluminum, copper, etc.), energy (electricity),
accessories (water, chemicals, etc.), and transportation of components or
resources, resulting in emissions, waste, and recycling.
(Figure 1)

(Figure 1) Normalized impacts of vehicle production. Results for each impact


category have been normalized to the largest total impact. Global warming
(GWP), terrestrial acidification (TAP), particulate matter formation (PMFP),
photochemical oxidation formation (POFP), human toxicity (HTP), freshwater
eco-toxicity (FETP), terrestrial eco-toxicity (TETP), freshwater eutrophication
(FEP), mineral resource depletion (MDP), fossil resource depletion (FDP),
internal combustion engine vehicle (ICEV), electric vehicle (EV), lithium iron
phosphate (LiFePO4), lithium nickel cobalt manganese (LiNCM), coal ©, natural
gas (NG), European electricity mix (Euro).

Figure 1 compares six transportation technologies in terms of ten life cycle


environmental impact categories. The cases represent an LiNCM or LiFePO4 EV
powered by European average electricity (Euro), an LiNCM EV powered by
either natural gas (NG) or coal © electricity, and an ICEV powered by either
gasoline (G) or diesel (D). Impacts are broken down in terms of life cycle stages
and normalized to the greatest impact. Differences between the impacts of the
two EV options arise solely from differences in the production of the batteries.

For all scenarios, human toxicity potential (HTP), mineral depletion potential
(MDP), and freshwater eco-toxicity potential (FETP) are caused primarily by the
supply chains involved in the production of the vehicles. On the other hand, the
use phase dominates for GWP, terrestrial eco-toxicity potential (TETP), and
fossil depletion potential (FDP). End-of-life treatment adds only a marginal
contribution across all impact categories. The EV production phase is more
environmentally intensive than that of ICEVs for all impact categories with the
exception of terrestrial acidification potential (TAP). The supply chains involved
in the production of electric powertrains and traction batteries add significantly
to the environmental impacts of vehicle production. For some environmental
impact categories, lower emissions during the use phase compensate for the
additional burden caused during the production phase of EVs, depending on the
electricity mix. However, this is not always the case.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, a comparative analysis between Electric Vehicles (EVs) and


Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles (ICEVs) is presented, assessing their
environmental impacts across 10 categories throughout their lifecycle. The
results show that:

- EVs have significant environmental impacts during the manufacturing phase


of batteries and motors.

- ICEVs have predominant environmental impacts during their usage.

According to Figure 1 (+aZNins, 2012), EVs powered by the average European


energy mix could reduce global warming impacts by up to 24% compared to
ICEVs (Hawkins, 2012).

While significant progress has been made in reducing environmental impacts


across the three lifecycle stages (manufacturing, use, and end-of-life), it is
crucial to continue improving to meet the requirements of the circular
economy, which must influence the entire economy and society.

You might also like