wseas-12130-20260930130216-6fb2e9 20260930130216919 wseas/wseas wseas.group@gmail.com WSEAS WSEAS Transactions on Circuits and Systems 1109-2734 2224-266X 03 30 2026 03 30 2026 25 Paraschos Maniatis Business Administration Department Athens University of Economics and Business Patision 76 GR-104 34 Athens, GREECE The shift towards low-carbon transport is increasingly influenced by choices among hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), battery electric vehicles (BEVs), and fuel cell electric vehicles (FCEVs). Typical comparative analyses often focus solely on lifecycle cost or environmental performance, frequently assuming fixed battery behavior and simplified end-of-life processes. These simplifications can obscure complex interactions between battery longevity, when batteries are replaced, the value recovered through recycling, and how energy and emissions vary based on infrastructure. This research introduces a comprehensive lifecycle techno-economic and emissions framework that explicitly considers mid-life battery replacement dynamics, the economic recovery from recycling, residual value recovery with proper discounting, and energy and emissions inputs sensitive to infrastructure. A discounted Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) model is combined with a lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions assessment spanning a 15-year operational period. Scenario and sensitivity analyses evaluate the model's resilience under fluctuating energy prices and uncertainties in battery costs. The study also examines variations in replacement timing and differences in grid carbon intensity. Quantitative initial findings, derived using consistent parameters, indicate that HEVs offer economic stability when electricity prices or battery costs are high. BEVs exhibit the lowest lifecycle emissions in scenarios with low-carbon electricity, and retrieving value through recycling diminishes the long-term volatility of ownership costs. Analyses of sensitivity and uncertainty pinpoint electricity price and battery replacement cost/schedule as key economic drivers for BEVs, while grid carbon intensity is the primary factor influencing emissions rankings. This integrated framework uncovers economic turning points and emissions trade-offs that are not revealed by deterministic or single-metric comparisons, underscoring the vital role of circular battery economics and infrastructure preparedness in shaping realistic pathways toward decarbonization. 09 30 2026 09 30 2026 340 31 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 10.37394/23201.2026.25.31 https://wseas.com/journals/articles.php?id=12130 Delucchi, M. A., & Lipman, T. E. (2001). An analysis of the retail and lifecycle cost of battery-powered electric vehicles. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 6(6), 371-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(00)00031-6 Plotkin, S., Singh, M., & Santini, D. (2001). Hybrid-electric vehicle technology assessment. Argonne National Laboratory Report. Neubauer, J., & Wood, E. (2014). The impact of range anxiety and home, workplace, and public charging infrastructure on simulated battery electric vehicle lifetime utility. Journal of Power Sources, 257, 12-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.01.075 Wu, G., Inderbitzin, A., & Bening, C. R. (2015). Total cost of ownership of electric vehicles compared to conventional vehicles: A probabilistic analysis and projection across market segments. Energy Policy, 80, 196-214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.02.004 Hawkins, T. R., Singh, B., Majeau-Bettez, G., & Strømman, A. H. (2013). Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 17(1), 53-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x Ellingsen, L. A.-W., Hung, C. R., & Strømman, A. H. (2017). Identifying key assumptions and differences in life cycle assessment studies of lithium-ion traction batteries with focus on greenhouse gas emissions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 148, 83-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.117 Harper, G., Sommerville, R., Kendrick, E., Driscoll, L., Slater, P., Stolkin, R., Walton, A., Christensen, P., Heidrich, O., Lambert, S., Abbott, A., Ryder, K., Gaines, L., & Anderson, P. (2019). Recycling lithium-ion batteries from electric vehicles. Nature, 575(7781), 75-86. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1682-5 Gaines, L. (2018). Lithium-ion battery recycling processes: Research towards a sustainable course. Sustainable Materials and Technologies, 17, e00068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2018.e00068 Offer, G. J., Contestabile, M., Howey, D. A., Clague, R., & Brandon, N. P. (2010). Comparative analysis of battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell and hybrid vehicles in a future sustainable road transport system. Energy Policy, 38(1), 24-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.08.040 Bicer, Y., & Dincer, I. (2018). Life cycle environmental impact assessments of hydrogen production methods. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 43(25), 11754-11768. Onat, N. C., Kucukvar, M., & Tatari, O. (2015). Well-to-wheel analysis of alternative fuel vehicles. Energy, 75, 36-44. Faria, R., Marques, P., Moura, P., Freire, F., Delgado, J., & de Almeida, A. T. (2013). Impact of the electricity mix and use profile in the life-cycle assessment of electric vehicles. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 24, 271-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.063 Ahmadi, L., Fowler, M., Young, S. B., Fraser, R., Achachlouei, M. A., & Lundin, M. (2014). Energy efficiency of Li-ion battery packs re-used in stationary power applications. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments, 8, 9-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2014.06.006 ISO. (2006). ISO 14040: Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization. ISO. (2006). ISO 14044: Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines. International Organization for Standardization. Helton, J. C., & Davis, F. J. (2003). Latin hypercube sampling and the propagation of uncertainty in analyses of complex systems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 81(1), 23-69. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8320(03)00058-9 Saltelli, A., Ratto, M., Andres, T., Campolongo, F., Cariboni, J., Gatelli, D., Saisana, M., & Tarantola, S. (2008). Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470725184