Report on LIME 3 Assessment ofVehicles

June 2019
Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

2.4
LIME 3 Assessment of Vehicles

1.

General1.1

Assessment implementors

Affiliated institution: Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Research Division
Name: Mayumi Isobe
Contact: m-isobe@mail.nissan.co.jp

1.2

Report creation date

May 25, 20192.

Goal of the study

2.1

Reasons for carrying out the study

Use LCA to assess the environmental impact throughout the life cycle of vehicles (gasoline, electric)
and ascertain their environmental performance.

2.2

Intended applications

To ascertain the environmental performance of gasoline and electric vehicles, clarify processes thatare critical to improving environmental impact, and provide information for making design
improvements.

3.

Scope of the study

3.1

Study subjects and specifications

One Nissan SYLPHY a gasoline vehicle with 1.8L internal combustion engine (vehicle weight:1,230kg),manufactured, used, and disposed of in Japan, the United States, or Europe and one Nissan
Leaf a electric vehicle with a 40kWh lithium-ion battery (vehicle weight: 1,510kg).

3.2

Functions and functional units

Set as the entire life cycle of a single vehicle (gasoline and EV) used for 10 years with a total driving
distance of 150,000km. (Table 3.1-1)

2.4
LIME 3 Assessment of Vehicles

Table 3.1-1. Specification sheet of gasoline vehicles (unit (kg/f.u.))

SYLPHY

LEAF

Fuel

Gasoline

Electricity

Engine / motor

MRA8DE

EM57―

Li-ion 40kWh

Weight1,230 kg

1,510 kg

Body type

Sedan

HatchbackEngine capacity

1.798 L―

96kW/6000rpm

110kW/3283～9795rpm

CVT-

15.6 km/L

120Wh/km

Rechargeable battery

Maximum net power
Transmission
Fuel efficiency (JC08)
Life time

10 years

Total operating
distance
3.3150,000 kmSystem boundaries

Manufacturing, fuel production, operation, maintenance, and disposal stages (Fig. 3.2-1).

Fig. 3.2-1 Major vehicle product systems and system boundaries

2.4
LIME 3 Assessment of Vehicles

3.4

Special notes (excluded processes, matters, etc.)

After disposal, vehicles are mainly recycled for iron, aluminum and other metals but the recycling
processes were excluded from the scope of this assessment. Also, ASR (Automobile Shredder
Residue) is incinerated and landfilled but energy recovery during incineration was excluded from thescope of this assessment. Furthermore, the construction, maintenance, and disposal of factories andmachines related to parts production, assembly, fuel production, tools and parts required formaintenance, as well as the construction, maintenance and disposal of roads and related infrastructureused during vehicle operation are not included in the assessment.
Vehicles produced in Japan, North America, and Great Britain are assumed to be subject to averageuse in their respective regions and operated under the certified fuel efficiency modes specific to eachcountry.

4.

Inventory analysis

4.1

Foreground data

Regarding material and weight data for vehicle component parts, we used internally integrated datataken from International Material Data System (IMDS).
Energy intensity is based on data calculated via the following methods using information fromcompany factories.
For each process of casting, stamping, forging, welding, parts assembly, painting, resin molding,and resin coating, we allocated environmental load per product mass based on the share of energy used
at each factory during the one-year period of FY2016, which is calculated from the total mass of
production in each factory. For each processes of vehicle painting and vehicle assembly, we allocatedenvironmental load per vehicle produced based on the share of energy volume used at each factoryduring the one-year period of FY2016, which is calculated from the number of vehicle produced ineach facility. For forging process, we allocated environmental load per part based on the number ofparts in each process during the one-year period of FY2016.
For the use stage, we used fuel efficiency in JC08 mode for Japan, in combined LA4 (City) andhighway mode for the USA, and in NEDC mode for Europe. Fuel efficiency figures are shown in
Table 4.1-1.
For the disposal stage, we used internal data gathered from research related to recycling.
Table 4.1-1 Fuel efficiency
USAJapanEuropeGasoline (km/L)

13.6

15.6

14.9

EV (Wh/km)

186120146

2.4
LIME 3 Assessment of Vehicles

4.2

Background data

Tire and lead-acid battery manufacturing data was taken from the LCA Japan Forum 2017 Ver.11).
Other data was taken from the GaBi database 8.7 2).
Used power ratios are shown in Fig. 4.2-1 to 4.2-3 and electricity and gasoline inventories are shownin Table 4.2-1.

Fig. 4.2-1 Electricity structure in the USA

Fig. 4.2-2

Electricity structure in Japan2.4
LIME 3 Assessment of Vehicles

Fig. 4.2-3

Electricity structure in Great Britain

Table 4.2-1 Electricity and gasoline inventories

GWP(kg-CO2e）
AP（kg SO2 e）
ADPelement（kg Sb e）
POCP(kg Ethene e）
Primary Energy Demand(MJ)Blue water consumption(kg)4.3

Gasoline (/kg)
Electricity(/kWh)
USJP
GB
USJP
GB
0.817
0.566
0.770
0.614
0.661
0.477
2.3E-03 3.5E-03 2.7E-03 2.0E-03 1.1E-03 1.6E-03
7.0E-07 5.1E-08 2.4E-07 1.4E-07 1.3E-07 1.2E-07
3.6E-04 3.4E-04 4.0E-04 1.2E-04 8.4E-05 8.5E-05
54.7
50.7
53.0
10.6
9.93
10.1
20.1
0.28
6.50
3.38
2.55
2.30

Items in the inventory analysis and the results

Table 4.3-1 shows a list of inventory analysis items for gasoline vehicles and EV.

2.4
LIME 3 Assessment of Vehicles

Table 4.3-1. LCI analysis results of vehicles (unit (kg/f.u.))

Coal
Oil(fuel)
Naturalgas
Uranium
Oil(Raw)
Consumpti Depletion
Ironon Loadresource
CopperBauxiteNickelChrom
LeadZincCO2Outdoor
airpollution
Emission
Load

Aquaticpollution

Production

Fuel
Production○○○

Driving

MaintenanceDisposal

○
○

○
○

○
○

○

○

○

○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○

○
○

○

○

○

○

○

○

CH4○

○

○

○

○

N2 O○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○
○

○

○

○

○

○
○
○
○
○
○

○
○
○

○
○
○
○

○
○
○
○

○

○

○

HFC-134aCO
NMVOC
NOx
PM10
PM2.5
SOx
COD
T-N

PO4 3ASR(disposSoil
pollutional)5.

Impact assessment

5.1

Assessment steps and impact categories○For the impact assessment, we used the Japanese version of the LIME3, Life-cycle Impact
Assessment (LCIA) Method based on Endpoint modeling to conduct a three-step assessment
comprised of characterization, a damage assessment, and integration. Impact categories for assessment
in each step are shown in Table 5.1-1. For the LIME3 coefficient, we used the discount rate of 3%
applied to the G20.

2.4
LIME 3 Assessment of Vehicles

Table 5.1-1. Applicable environmental impact categories and assessment steps
Damage assessment
Climate change○

Air pollution○

Photochemical oxidants○

Water resource consumption○

Land use
Resource consumption○(fossil fuels, mineral resources)
Forest resource consumption
Waste products○Integrated
IF1
IF2

5.2

Impact assessment results

5.2.1

Damage assessment○The results of damage assessments (breakdown by substance) for gasoline vehicles for the four
protection areas are shown in Figure 5.2-1 to 5.2-9. From left, US: Manufactured and operated in theUSA (US coefficient), JP: Manufactured and operated in the Japan (Japan coefficient), GB:Manufactured and operated in Great Britain (GB coefficient), Ave: Manufactured and operated in
Great Britain (global average coefficient for resource, GB for others).
With gasoline vehicles, the impact differences between countries was minor. Looking at the impact
on human health, the global warming impact of the use stage is significant, followed by water
consumption but air pollution impact level varied depending on the country. Water consumption
impact was significant during vehicle manufacturing and the material production for maintenanceparts. In particular, consumption volume during the production of natural rubber was significant.
Similarly, the impact of global warming on biodiversity was significant during the use stage. At thesame time, the impact of primary production was significant in terms mineral and energy resource
consumption during the manufacturing phase. Looking at the impact on social assets, energy
consumption (petroleum) was significant during the use stage.
Attributable factors of the impact include significant GWP during operation for human health andbiodiversity, the large consumption of coal during power generation for primary production, and thelarge consumption of petroleum during use for societal assets.

2.4
LIME 3 Assessment of Vehicles

Fig. 5.2-1. Gasoline vehicle damage

Fig. 5.2-2. Gasoline vehicle damage

assessment results

assessment results(Human health: by life stage)(Human health: by impact category)Fig. 5.2-3. Gasoline vehicle damage

Fig. 5.2-4. Gasoline vehicle damage

assessment results

assessment results(Biodiversity: by life stage)(Biodiversity: by impact category)Fig. 5.2-5. Gasoline vehicle damage

Fig. 5.2-6. Gasoline vehicle damage

assessment results

assessment results(Primary production: by life stage)(Primary production: by impact category)2.4
LIME 3 Assessment of Vehicles

Fig. 5.2-7. Gasoline vehicle damageFig. 5.2-8. Gasoline vehicle damage

assessment results

assessment results(Social asset: by life stage)(Social asset: by impact category)Fig. 5.2-9. Gasoline vehicle damage assessment results(Social asset in Japan: by mineral and energy type)The results of damage assessments for EV for the four protection areas are shown in Figure 5.2-10
to 5.2-18. With EV, the impact differences between countries was large compared to gasoline vehicles.
The impact on human health was largely represented by the global warming impact during themanufacturing stage and then the use stage. In Great Britain, the impact of air pollution was significant.
This is the impact of mineral resource mining and concentrating and the impact of PM2.5 caused by
SO2 emissions during power production during the use stage. As with gasoline vehicles, water
consumption impact was significant during vehicle manufacturing and the material production formaintenance parts. In particular, consumption volume during the production of natural rubber wassignificant. The impact on biodiversity was mainly global warming which was significant during themanufacturing stage as well as the use stage. At the same time, the impact on primary production was

2.4
LIME 3 Assessment of Vehicles

significant in terms of mineral and energy resource consumption during the manufacturing stage butwhen comparing with gasoline vehicles, the impact was also significant during the use stage (fuelproduction). The impact on social assets was significant in terms of resource consumption during themanufacturing stage (mineral resources).
Attributable factors of the impact include significant GWP during operation for human health andbiodiversity, the large consumption of coal during power generation for primary production, and thelarge consumption of minerals (cobalt, copper, nickel, etc.) during production for social assets.

Fig. 5.2-10. Results of damage assessments for EV

Fig. 5.2-11. Results of damage assessments for EV(Human health: by life stage)(Human health: by impact category)Fig. 5.2-12 Results of damage assessments for EV

Fig. 5.2-13. Results of damage assessments for EV(Biodiversity: by life stage)(Biodiversity: by impact category)2.4
LIME 3 Assessment of Vehicles

Fig. 5.2-14 Results of damage assessments for EV

Fig. 5.2-15 Results of damage assessments for EV(Primary production: by life stage)(Primary production: by impact category)Fig. 5.2-16. Results of damage assessments for EV Fig. 5.2-17. Results of damage assessments for EV(Social asset: by life stage)(Societal asset: by impact category)

Other

Fig. 5.2-18. Results of damage assessments for EV(Social asset in Japan: by mineral and energy type)2.4
LIME 3 Assessment of Vehicles

5.2.3

Weighting

Gasoline vehicle weighting results are shown in Fig. 5.2-19 and 5.2-20. Looking at theenvironmental impact for the entire life cycle, with gasoline vehicles the impact was significant during
the use stage with major impact items being CO2 emissions and energy resource consumption in theform of crude oil. In particular, we saw that the impact of petroleum consumption (gasoline%consumption) during use was most significant.

Fig. 5.2-19. Gasoline vehicle integration results

Fig. 5.2-20. Gasoline vehicle integration results

By life stage

By impact category

EV weighting results are shown in Fig. 5.2-21 and 5.2-22. Looking at the environmental impact for
the entire life cycle, with EV the impact was significant during the manufacturing stage with major
impact items being the impact of mineral resources on social assets. In particular, while the impact
ratio varies between countries, the impact of power components such as cobalt, nickel, and copper was%%significant.

Fig. 5.2-21. EV integration results

Fig. 5.2-22. EV integration results

By life stage

By impact category

2.4
LIME 3 Assessment of Vehicles

6.

Conclusion

6.1

Summary of survey results

We compared the environmental impact for the entire life cycle (manufacturing, fuel production,
operation (10 years, 150,000km)), maintenance, and disposal) of gasoline vehicles and EV in Japan,
the US, and Great Britain.
With gasoline vehicles, country-specific differences were minimal and environmental impact waslargely represented by the operating stage and vehicle production. In particular, gasoline production
has an impact due to Oil-well drilling and vehicle operation has a global warming impact due to CO2emissions. From these results, it was clear that the impact on social assets caused by Oil-well drilling
and the impact on human health caused by global warming were the main environmental impacts.
With EV, there were country-specific differences during manufacturing and use stages. The
environmental impact of the manufacturing stage was mainly the impact of excavating mineral
resources while the environmental impact of the use stage was mainly the impact on social resources
and human health. The impact on social assets was mainly the previously mentioned impact of mineral
resources for batteries. The environmental impact of global warming was mainly material and parts
production during the manufacturing stage and the impact of CO2 emissions during fuel production(power generation).
As a comprehensive evaluation of gasoline vehicles and EV, the results indicate that while impact
targets differ, both have a significant impact on social assets. To reduce the environmental impact ofthese vehicles, for gasoline vehicles it is effective to suppress fuel consumption during operation. For
EV, due to the significant impact of mineral resource consumption on social assets, there is thought tobe potential to reduce environmental impact by recycling and reusing batteries.

6.2

Limits and future issues

This assessment covers the main processes in the life cycle, and the validity of the results isconsidered to be secured. However, substances subject to assessment are evaluated based on certified
values and regulatory values for operating fuel economy and exhaust emissions. There is thepossibility assessment results will vary significantly depending on assessment conditions, including
fuel consumption ratios, driving conditions, and region of operation. As such, there is a need to conduct
a sensitivity analysis of these factors. Furthermore, these results indicate the social asset impact to besignificant but social impact itself is highly impacted by the country analyzed (advanced, developing)and discount rate. As such, there is also a need to conduct a sensitivity analysis based on assumptions
made regarding the LIME 3 coefficient.
R&D for EV battery is being conducted actively but we targeted commercially available vehicles
at the time of this assessment. Considering the ongoing development of batteries, it would be
preferable to continue conducting assessments.

2.4
LIME 3 Assessment of Vehicles

Similarly, various proposals are being made regarding EV battery reuse and recycling as well as theuse of EV batteries as social infrastructure. There is a need to validate the effects of such use.

Reference literature
1) LCA Japan Forum 2017, ver.1: 309111 Vehicle Lead-Acid Batteries, 231113 Passenger Vehicle
Tires
2) Thinkstep: GaBi, Software

8.7