90511_acv-comparative-ve-vt-rapport

methodology or data gaps), the choice made in the report was aiming at being
transparent in order to clearly present the study limitations. Main limitations are thus
presented in the core of the report.
One objective of the study was to compare environmental performances of electric
vehicles in five different European countries. This objective is not fully reached because
the assumptions and the results obtained are not on the same level of accuracy for each
country. While for France, results and assumptions are very clear; this is not the case for
other studies for which simply general tendencies are presented.
5- Need of clarifications and modifications (need of modifications in the report)
- Langage : Tables, figures and some footnotes are in French in the English report and
make results hard to understand.
- Need of an improved reference: The automobile industry in general does not encourage
the calculation of recycling credits/ Mercedes-Benz models with environmental certificates
it refers to (Daimler website: http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-1312394-1-1312442-1-0-
0-0-0-0-16158-876574-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html.) you mention a general positioning of the
automotive industry while you are referring to a company website where the relation with
the reference is not obvious.
- Inadapted assertion: P25: “In line with the ISO 14040 and 14044 guidelines, end-point
indicators are not used in this study”. ISO does not restrict the use of endpoint indicators
as it does not require it. Replace this sentence by “end-point indicators are not used in
this study”.
- Data coherence: The issue related to the car weight need to be clarified all along the
report (values and unit) :
EV without battery is given at 1310 kg (p7),
For the PC, the weight of the EV without the battery is 1306 t, (p.8 pb of unit)
For the EV, the calculated weight is 1 200 kg excluding the battery (p 34)
the weight of the electric engine and the gear box is 110 kg. (p32)
260