Life cycle assessment guided strategies for achieving zero-waste manufacturing of hydrogen fuel cells and batteries and the advancement of circular and low-carbon technologies for electric vehicles

Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) and Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs) are widely recognized as promising options for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the transportation sector. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a vital tool for evaluating the full environmental impact, from vehicle and fuel production to use and disposal. This review summarizes recent LCAs comparing BEVs and FCEVs across multiple impact categories, including carbon footprint, resource use, energy efficiency, and water consumption. Results indicate that BEVs generally perform better than FCEVs in terms of overall energy efficiency and GHG emissions, especially when powered by low-carbon electricity. However, FCEVs may have advantages in specific scenarios like heavy-duty or long-range applications, provided hydrogen is produced from renewable sources. LCA outcomes are highly sensitive to assumptions about energy mixes, technology development, regional conditions, and system boundaries. Importantly, while policy incentives do not change LCA methods, they influence the broader energy and technology landscape such as the speed of renewable energy deployment, hydrogen infrastructure, and battery innovation that affects how LCA results are interpreted. Overall, neither technology is superior in all respects; BEVs excel in efficiency and short-range applications, whereas FCEVs may be better suited for demanding transportation needs that require longer range and faster refueling. This complementarity suggests that both technologies can play mutually reinforcing roles in achieving sustainable transportation goals. Provides a comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of HFCVs and BEVs across production, use, and end-of-life (EoL) stages. Finds that BEVs emit less during use, while HFCVs provide advantages in range and refueling time, but face higher fuel production impacts. Highlights how regional energy mix, infrastructure, and policy impact environmental performance. Highlights the importance of standardized LCA methods and enhanced CE strategies for both technologies.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Discover Sustainability
Published
2026-04-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-026-03203-y
Primary Topic
Electric Vehicles and Infrastructure
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Life cycle assessment guided strategies for achieving zero-waste manufacturing of hydrogen fuel cells and batteries and the advancement of circular and low-carbon technologies for electric vehicles

Milon Selvam Dennison, S. Kirubanidhi Jebabalan
Discover Sustainability
Electric Vehicles and Infrastructure
article

Life cycle assessment guided strategies for achieving zero-waste manufacturing of hydrogen fuel cells and batteries and the advancement of circular and low-carbon technologies for electric vehicles

Milon Selvam Dennison, S. Kirubanidhi Jebabalan
article en

Abstract

Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) and Hydrogen Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles (FCEVs) are widely recognized as promising options for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the transportation sector. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a vital tool for evaluating the full environmental impact, from vehicle and fuel production to use and disposal. This review summarizes recent LCAs comparing BEVs and FCEVs across multiple impact categories, including carbon footprint, resource use, energy efficiency, and water consumption. Results indicate that BEVs generally perform better than FCEVs in terms of overall energy efficiency and GHG emissions, especially when powered by low-carbon electricity. However, FCEVs may have advantages in specific scenarios like heavy-duty or long-range applications, provided hydrogen is produced from renewable sources. LCA outcomes are highly sensitive to assumptions about energy mixes, technology development, regional conditions, and system boundaries. Importantly, while policy incentives do not change LCA methods, they influence the broader energy and technology landscape such as the speed of renewable energy deployment, hydrogen infrastructure, and battery innovation that affects how LCA results are interpreted. Overall, neither technology is superior in all respects; BEVs excel in efficiency and short-range applications, whereas FCEVs may be better suited for demanding transportation needs that require longer range and faster refueling. This complementarity suggests that both technologies can play mutually reinforcing roles in achieving sustainable transportation goals. Provides a comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of HFCVs and BEVs across production, use, and end-of-life (EoL) stages. Finds that BEVs emit less during use, while HFCVs provide advantages in range and refueling time, but face higher fuel production impacts. Highlights how regional energy mix, infrastructure, and policy impact environmental performance. Highlights the importance of standardized LCA methods and enhanced CE strategies for both technologies.

Discover Sustainability
Technische Universität Ilmenau (DE), Kampala International University (UG)
Industry, innovation and infrastructure
Openalex Percentile: Top 16%
Electric Vehicles and Infrastructure
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.