## 2 Method for Comparing ICEVs and BEVs--Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs)
Quantify GHG emissions using CO2 equivalents (tCO2e) for the key phases:  
* Production, differentiating BEVs and ICE vehicles by material intensity. * Operation, analyzing energy losses in electricity generation, distribution, and use. * End of life, evaluating emissions savings from advanced recycling technologies. * Region-specific energy mix emission data were applied to refine the calculations. Step 4. Interpretation and Sensitivity Analysis. * Analyze results to identify the critical phases and factors influencing emissions. * Evaluate scenarios under varying assumptions, such as grid decarbonization or advances in battery production and recycling. WTT refers to the processes required to convert crude oil from the wells at the fuel depot into usable petrol or diesel fuel, and TTW refers to combustion in the engine, as shown in Figure 6. This terminology has also been adopted for BEVs, with WTT referring to all impacts of electricity generation that occur prior to vehicle charging, and TTW referring to the direct impacts of driving the vehicle [5]. Figure 5: LCA framework (adapted from [27]). The transition to electric vehicles has spurred interest in understanding their environmental impacts compared to conventional ICE vehicles. This study employed a Python 3.10.14-based model to conduct a comprehensive LCA of GHG emissions for BEVs and ICE vehicles (see Appendix A). The model's results provided insights into the relative emissions performance of these vehicles under various scenarios, serving as a decision-making tool for policymakers and researchers. The input data were (i) emissions due to vehicle production, excluding the battery, from Table 5; (ii) emissions associated with the maintenance of either ICEs or BEVs per km, with values of 8.34 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\) and 4.17 \(\times\) 10\({}^{-6}\) tCO\({}_{\text{2e}}\)/km, respectively; (iii) direct CO\({}_{\text{2e}}\) emissions per km resulting from the combustion of petrol or diesel in ICEVs, using the average values in Table 7; (iv) emissions associated with the extraction/refining/transportation of fuel from Table 7; and (v) CO2e emissions per kWh of electricity generated, varying by country, from Table 8; (vi) emission intensity during the manufacture of batteries from Table 3; (vii) end-of-life emissions from Table 9. Additional parameters such as vehicle size, fuel type, and battery manufacturing location further defined the scenarios analyzed. The outputs after comparing the emissions for each scenario are displayed, and the code prints the scenarios where BEVs become more environmentally friendly than ICE vehicles. The results include the vehicle size, fuel type, country, battery production location, the distance at which BEVs become greener, and the emissions for both vehicles at that distance. Finally, the code also calculates and shows the total emissions after 240,000 km (this mileage was used in [24; 28; 29]) for each scenario. The initial emissions are a significant factor in the overall Life Cycle Assessment, highlighting the initial environmental cost of BEVs compared to ICEVs (see Table 5). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \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\({}_{\text{2e}}\)/vehicle & 5.0 & 6.0 & 7.0 & 5.5 & 6.7 & 7.8 & 5.8 & 7.0 & 8.2 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Emissions from vehicle production, excluding battery production and depending on vehicle dimensions (adapted from [25]). Figure 6: Life Cycle Assessment system for the Well-to-Wheel analysis of ICEVs and EVs. The intensity of emissions from battery production depends on the country where this manufacturing takes place and the type of battery used (see Table 3).