MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412975107 · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.146278

A review of current state-of-the-art road vehicle life cycle assessment tools

2025· article· en· W4412975107 on OpenAlexafffund
Susie Ruqun Wu, Anne de Bortoli, Cécile Bulle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cleaner Production · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle emissions and performance
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologies
KeywordsLife-cycle assessmentState (computer science)Current (fluid)State of artEngineeringTransport engineeringComputer scienceEconomicsProduction (economics)Electrical engineeringBiochemical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the increasing availability of vehicle Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tools, practitioners need a clear understanding of each tools' modeling methodology to select the one best fitting their needs to reach robust conclusions on whether and how a reduction of certain environmental burdens could be realized from advanced technologies, such as electric vehicles. We reviewed five free open-source LCA tools evaluating four wheeled vehicles, namely, GREET (2022 rev1), AFLEET (2023), carculator (v1.8.4), GHGenius (v5.02), and EV Footprint (2023). We conducted the review through 1) deciphering the LCA methodology of each tool, 2) benchmarking key inventory data to understand where and why tool-derived discrepancies could happen, and 3) developing a framework for assessing tools' adaptability and suitability to aid practitioners in choosing and customizing tools as needed. The results showed that each tool is developed with different scopes, adopting different model mechanism, sourcing different background data and characterizing different impact categories. At inventory stage, data on fuel feedstock, electricity mix, battery chemistry are sourced and aggregated differently, and different types of on-road emissions are reported. The life cycle impact assessment implementation does not significantly contribute to discrepancies where carbon footprint is the only commonly reported impact indicator across tools. Using the newly proposed framework, we found carculator to have the highest adaptability, followed closely by GREET. The framework proposes aligning user needs with each tool's goals and scope to determine final suitability scores. We finally identified key input parameters for each tool, with examples of parameter customization provided. • Five free open-source vehicle Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tools are reviewed. • Each tool covers different model mechanism, technological and geographical scope. • Major result discrepancies are due to different background data sources adopted. • Use carculator for a full range of LCA impacts, other tools only cover carbon footprint. • A framework to help users selecting a tool is proposed based on adaptability score.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cleaner ProductionSame topicVehicle emissions and performanceFrench-language works237,207