ライフサイクルと気候の観点からの電気自動車サステナビリティに関する批判的レビュー
A critical review of electric vehicle sustainability from a life cycle and climate perspective (原題)
R. Prasanna, Karthik Chandran, Sekar Karthikeyan, Vaishnavi Mahadevan
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本レビューは224研究を精査し、EVの環境優位性が車両生産・電池バリューチェーン・電力供給・充電インフラ・廃棄管理の相互作用に依存すると統合的に示す。低炭素電源下ではライフサイクルGHGが概ねICEVを下回るが、その幅は系統炭素強度や電池生産、走行・充電行動、リサイクル前提に強く左右される。インフラのLCA未整備や電池循環性、AIの汎化性などが主要な知識ギャップとして挙げられ、動的で調和のとれたライフサイクル評価の必要性を訴える。
English
This review synthesizes 224 studies on EV sustainability from an integrated life-cycle and climate perspective. EVs generally show lower life-cycle GHG than ICEVs, especially under low-carbon grids, but the magnitude depends on grid carbon intensity, battery production, vehicle lifetime, driving/charging behavior, and recycling assumptions. Charging infrastructure, battery circularity, and AI-enabled mobility are highlighted, with key gaps in infrastructure LCA, regional diversity, and AI interpretability.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本では自動車産業が基幹であり、EV普及と系統脱炭素・電池循環（欧州電池規則対応）が産業競争力に直結する。SSBJ開示でScope 3（電池調達・使用段階）の算定前提を検討する日本企業にとって、ライフサイクル評価の感度要因整理は実務的に有用。
In the global GX context
Aligns with global transport-decarbonization and Scope 3 accounting debates under ISSB/CSRD, where EV life-cycle evidence informs transition planning and product carbon footprint disclosure. It adds a structured synthesis of methodological variability that matters for harmonizing LCA-based climate claims.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:EVライフサイクル評価の方法論的多様性と知識ギャップを整理する基礎資料として有用。
🏢実務担当者:電池調達・使用段階のScope 3算定や製品カーボンフットプリント前提の感度を理解する助けになる。
🏛政策担当者:系統脱炭素・充電インフラ・電池循環政策をEVのライフサイクル便益と結びつける根拠を提供する。
📄 Abstract（原文）
Abstract Electric vehicles (EVs) are central to transport decarbonization, but their environmental benefits depend on interactions among vehicle production, battery value chains, electricity supply, charging infrastructure, operational strategies, and end‐of‐life management. This review critically synthesizes EV sustainability from an integrated life‐cycle and climate perspective using a structured literature‐selection process that retained 224 studies for detailed evaluation. The assessment covers life cycle assessment (LCA) methodologies, raw‐material extraction and battery manufacturing, vehicle production, charging and energy‐delivery systems, use‐phase electricity consumption, recycling and circularity, climate‐mitigation potential, and artificial intelligence (AI) enabled electric mobility. The synthesis confirms that EVs generally offer lower life‐cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than internal combustion engine vehicles, particularly under low‐carbon electricity systems, although the magnitude of this advantage remains strongly influenced by grid carbon intensity (CI), battery production, vehicle lifetime, driving and charging behavior, system boundaries, and recycling assumptions. Charging infrastructure emerges as an integral sustainability dimension because renewable integration, smart charging, vehicle‐to‐grid operation, station planning, and grid constraints affect both operational efficiency and system‐level emissions. However, for these benefits to be fully realized, a stronger connection with tangible life‐cycle outcomes is required. Methodological diversity, lack of life‐cycle evaluation of infrastructure, regional and temporal diversity, battery circularity, and AI generalization and interpretability are some of the key knowledge gaps identified in the review. Future EV sustainability needs to be based on a harmonized and dynamic life‐cycle approach encompassing sustainable manufacturing, grid decarbonization, renewables, intelligent charging, battery circularity, and system‐level sustainability metrics.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1002/ep.70741first seen 2026-10-31 04:43:28 · last seen 2026-11-06 04:35:23
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。