## 3 Results  
Several simulations were carried out to obtain the best scenario regarding GHG emissions. BEVs outperformed diesel and petrol vehicles in all possible scenarios for 240,000 km of mileage, as can be seen in Figure 7. Higher GHG emissions were indeed produced in the supply of raw materials and the manufacture of BEVs compared to ICEVs. The net life cycle impacts depended on the operation of the vehicle and on the electricity mix used to recharge the BEVs. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Type of Vehicle** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**BEVs**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**ICEVs-Petrol**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**ICEVs-Diesel**} \\  & **Small** & **Medium** & **Large** & **Small** & **Medium** & **Large** & **Small** & **Medium** & **Large** \\ \hline tCO\({}_{2}\)e/vehicle & 1.6 & 2.0 & 2.4 & 1.1 & 1.3 & 1.6 & 1.1 & 1.3 & 1.6 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 9: End-of-life emissions depending on vehicle dimensions (adapted from [24]). It can be seen from Figure 7 that, on average, an electric vehicle in the EU emitted almost 3 times less CO2e than a conventional, either diesel or petrol, vehicle in 2023. In the best-case scenario where a BEV is powered by clean, renewable electricity from Norway, its GHG impact dropped to 9.2 tCO2e, which is 6.37 and 6.52 times lower than that of equivalent vehicles powered by diesel and petrol, respectively. In the worst-case scenario where the battery was produced in China and the electric vehicle was operating in one of the most carbon-intensive grids in the EU (Poland), the lifetime emission increased to 43.9 tCO2e but electric vehicles were still 16% cleaner than diesel vehicles and 18% cleaner than the equivalent petrol vehicles. The carbon intensity of the electricity used to charge a BEV has a significant impact on its overall CO2e emissions. In the current study, it was assumed that the battery was produced using the average global value, around 97 kg CO2e for each kWh of battery [9] (see Figure 8). In Poland, which has one of the most carbon-intensive grid energy mixes in Europe (mostly due to coal), a BEV was still 26% and 28% cleaner than a diesel-powered or petrol-powered ICEV, respectively, as can be ascertained from the values in Figures 7 and 8. Figure 9 shows that after production, BEVs quickly offset their carbon debt compared to ICE cars. Considering an annual mileage of 12,000 km (according to the median mileage in the USA, similar to the European value), it takes around two to three years of driving for a BEV to reach parity with diesel and petrol ICEVs [31]. Figure 9 also shows the CO2e emissions per kilometer accumulated for the distance travelled. BEVs are initially more polluting than ICEVs since the BEV production phase is around 40% more intensive in terms of emissions than that of ICEVs, mainly owing to the emissions released during battery production. In the best-case scenario, for BEVs with a battery produced with clean electricity in Sweden and running on clean electricity in Norway, the excess carbon debt would be repaid after around 5990 and 6189 km for an ICEV using petrol and -diesel, respectively. In the worst case, for a BEV with a battery produced in China and powered with the most polluting electricity in the EU (from Poland), it will be necessary to travel around 62,694 km  
Figure 7: GHG emissions (in tCO2e) from medium-sized vehicles over the life of BEVs in the best- and worst-case scenarios for a mileage of 240,000 km in the year 2023.  
compared to an ICEV using diesel, and for an ICEV using petrol, it will be necessary to reach 50,234 km. The energy consumption varied for different BEV weights between 16 and 19 kWh/100 km for small and large cars, respectively [30]. For petrol and diesel ICEVs, the energy consumption varied between 6.5 and 8.8 L/100 km and 5.4 and 6.7 L/100 km, respectively.