Page 54 - Read Online

Page 10 of 15 Geng et al. Carbon Footprints 2025, 4, 8 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/cf.2025.02

Figure 3D compares the LCE values of EVs equipped with different battery chemistries. The LCE ranges for
providing FR and PSVF services are 0.097-0.123 and 0.088-0.119 kgCO /kWh, respectively. In both cases,
2-eq
LFP batteries demonstrate the most favorable LCE performance, while NCM-L batteries exhibit the highest
values. This difference can be attributed to the lower GHG emissions associated with the materials and
manufacturing of LFP batteries. Additionally, EVs equipped with NCM-L batteries tend to have smaller
battery capacities, further leading to higher LCE values.

Figure 3E further compares the LCE values of PHEVs and BEVs. The results indicate that BEVs exhibit
superior LCE performance. For both services, the weighted average LCE values of PHEVs are 0.102 and
0.095 kgCO /kWh, respectively. For BEVs, the corresponding values are 0.100 and 0.089 kgCO /kWh.
2-eq
2-eq
Overall, BEVs, benefiting from their larger battery capacities, are better suited for V2G technology.

Figure 3F presents the LCE breakdown of FR and PSVF services. The results indicate that energy-related
GHG emissions contribute 59.0% and 66.8% of the total, highlighting that electricity losses due to battery
round-trip efficiency and fuel consumption alterations of PHEVs due to V2G participation are the primary
sources of additional GHG emissions. Emissions related to battery materials and manufacturing also
contribute significantly, accounting for 37.5% and 25.3%, respectively. In contrast, GHG emissions from
charger materials and manufacturing are relatively small, standing at 3.8% and 5.2%, respectively.

Multi-scenario analysis
The results above are based on the current technical landscape and GHG emission intensity in China,
representing the “Baseline” scenario. With the acceleration of transportation electrification, the market
share of BEVs is expected to rise significantly in the future. Simultaneously, clean energy generation is
anticipated to grow rapidly, with a higher proportion of renewable energy sources like wind and solar
power. To explore the potential future development, this study extended the Baseline scenario by analyzing
LCE values under several alternative scenarios, as shown in Figure 4. The BEV-dominant scenario
envisioned a future where BEVs become the dominant powertrain with 100% market penetration. The High
RE scenario modeled a future with a substantial increase in clean energy generation, resulting in a higher
share of renewables and a corresponding reduction in electricity GHG emission intensity. Projections for
provincial electricity GHG emission intensity in China by 2030 are used for this scenario. Additionally, EVs
equipped with LFP batteries demonstrated superior environmental performance in V2G applications. Given
the growing market for LFP-equipped EVs in China, the LFP-dominant scenario was also explored, where
100% of the EV fleet is powered by LFP batteries. Finally, the Aggressive scenario combined the effects of all
scenarios for a more holistic analysis.

In the BEV-dominant scenario, LCE values exhibit only slight variations. Specifically, the LCE for FR
services increases marginally from 0.101 to 0.102 kgCO /kWh, while for PSVF services, it decreases from
2-eq
0.091 to 0.089 kgCO /kWh. The contrasting trends can be attributed to the larger battery capacity of BEVs.
2-eq
For FR services, the increased battery size leads to higher emissions associated with battery materials and
manufacturing. However, for PSVF services, the larger battery capacity facilitates a more effective
amortization of GHG emissions across a greater volume of V2G services. In the LFP-dominant scenario,
LCE values decrease for both services due to the lower GHG emissions and longer cycle life of LFP batteries.
Specifically, the LCE values fall to 0.096 kgCO /kWh for FR services and 0.086 kgCO /kWh for PSVF
2-eq
2-eq
services. The High RE scenario shows a more significant reduction in LCE, as electricity-related GHG
emissions serve as the dominant factor. In this scenario, LCE values drop further to 0.086 kgCO /kWh for
2-eq
FR services and 0.075 kgCO /kWh for PSVF services. In the Aggressive scenario, where the combined
2-eq
effects of all three developments are considered, LCE values decrease even further, reaching