Electric vs. Combustion Vehicles: A QCA‑Based Life‑Cycle Carbon Evaluation

Dr. Philip Wong

Deputy Director of STEAM Education and Research Centre, Lingnan University

Mr. Kinson Lo

Project Officer of STEAM Education and Research Centre, Lingnan University

Ms Xueying Fan

Chuangjie Future Intelligent Technology Co. Ltd.

Abstract

This study applies Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) to examine the life‑cycle carbon performance of a Porsche Panamera (internal combustion engine vehicle, ICEV) and a Tesla Model Y (battery electric vehicle, BEV). Instead of treating drivetrain technology as determinative, the analysis conceptualizes lower life‑cycle greenhouse gas emissions as a configurational outcome shaped by multiple interacting conditions. Four principal conditions are evaluated: (1) low‑carbon electricity mix, (2) high lifetime vehicle mileage, (3) efficient road and traffic infrastructure, and (4) low‑carbon upstream energy pathways.

Using a crisp‑set QCA framework, the findings suggest that a relatively low‑carbon electricity mix functions as a near‑necessary condition for the BEV to achieve a clear life‑cycle emissions advantage. However, electricity decarbonization alone is not sufficient. The BEV advantage becomes consistently observable only when low‑carbon electricity is combined with sufficient lifetime mileage to offset higher production emissions associated with battery manufacturing. Infrastructure efficiency and upstream energy governance operate as contributory conditions that strengthen consistency but do not independently determine the outcome.

The analysis demonstrates causal asymmetry: while BEV superiority requires alignment across multiple conditions, a carbon‑intensive electricity grid alone can negate this advantage, even when other conditions are favourable. The results indicate that the comparative carbon ranking of BEVs and ICEVs is configurational rather than technology‑intrinsic. Decarbonization of mobility therefore depends on systemic alignment across energy production, infrastructure design, and usage intensity, rather than on vehicle electrification in isolation.

1. Analytical Focus

Outcome of interest:
Whether the Tesla Model Y produces lower total life‑cycle carbon emissions than the Porsche Panamera.

Life‑cycle emissions include:

·        Vehicle manufacturing

·        Battery production

·        Energy generation

·        Daily operation

·        End‑of‑life processes

The key observation is that the result is not fixed. It depends on how multiple conditions combine.

2. Key Conditions Influencing the Outcome

A. Carbon Intensity of Electricity (Most Decisive)

·        Low‑carbon grid (renewables, nuclear, cleaner mix)
→ Strong advantage for Tesla over its lifetime

·        Coal‑heavy or fossil‑intensive grid
→ Electric advantage narrows or may disappear

Observation:
A relatively clean electricity supply is close to a necessary condition for a clear BEV advantage.

B. Lifetime Mileage

·        High lifetime mileage
→ Allows Tesla to “repay” its higher battery production emissions
→ Strengthens BEV advantage

·        Low lifetime mileage
→ Production emissions dominate
→ Reduces or delays climate benefit

Observation:
Electric vehicles need sufficient use to justify their initial carbon footprint.

C. Road and Traffic Conditions

·        Smooth traffic flow

·        Coordinated signals

·        Stable driving speeds

→ Reduce energy use for both vehicles

·        Congested, stop‑start traffic
→ Increases fuel use for Porsche
→ Increases electricity consumption for Tesla

Observation:
Efficient infrastructure improves outcomes for both vehicles, but cannot offset a carbon‑intensive electricity grid.

D. Upstream Energy Pathways

·        Verified low‑carbon electricity production
→ Reinforces BEV advantage

·        Fossil‑based upstream energy
→ Weakens electric benefit

Observation:
“Clean” mobility depends on how energy is produced before it reaches the vehicle.

3. Major Configurations Identified

Configuration 1: Clean System Alignment (Strong BEV Advantage)

·        Low‑carbon electricity

·        High lifetime mileage

·        Reasonably efficient infrastructure

·        Low‑carbon upstream energy

→ Tesla clearly lower‑carbon than Porsche

Configuration 2: Carbon‑Intensive Grid (Weak or No BEV Advantage)

·        Fossil‑heavy electricity

·        Even with high mileage and good roads

→ Tesla advantage significantly reduced
→ Porsche may appear competitive

Configuration 3: Low Usage Scenario (Narrow BEV Advantage)

·        Clean electricity

·        Very low lifetime mileage

→ Environmental difference becomes small

Configuration 4: Infrastructure Efficiency Alone

·        Good road design

·        But carbon‑intensive grid

→ Improves efficiency for both vehicles
→ Does not reverse grid disadvantage

4. Core Findings

·        The electricity mix is the pivotal condition.

·        High mileage strengthens electric benefits.

·        Infrastructure quality modifies outcomes but does not determine them.

·        No single factor alone guarantees BEV superiority; alignment across conditions matters.

5. Overall Conclusion

The environmental comparison between a Porsche Panamera and a Tesla Model Y is not determined solely by technology.

It depends on:

·        The carbon intensity of electricity

·        How much the vehicle is driven

·        The efficiency of the transport system

·        The upstream energy pathway

Electric mobility is not automatically low‑carbon.
It becomes low‑carbon when the surrounding system supports it.

Reference:

1.      Porsche AG. (2020). Porsche Panamera owner’s manual. https://s3cf792cad773e861.jimcontent.com/download/version/1612526643/module/15686325722/name/Porsche%20Panamera%20Owner%27s%20Manual.pdf

2.      Pipitone, E., Caltabellotta, S., & Occhipinti, L. (2021). A life cycle environmental impact comparison between traditional, hybrid, and electric vehicles in the European context. Sustainability, 13(19), 10992.

3.      Tesla, Inc. (2026). Model Y owner’s manual. https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/modely/en_us/Owners_Manual.pdf

4.      Wong, P., & Lai, J. (2025a). Energy Transitions in Cities: A Comparative Analysis of Policies and Strategies in Hong Kong, London, and Melbourne. Energies, 18(1), 37. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18010037

5.      Wong, P. Y. L., Lo, K. C. C., Lai, J. H. K., & Wong, T. T. Y. (2025b). Proactive Regulation for Hydrogen Supply Chains: Enhancing Logistics Frameworks in Australia. Energies, 18(12), 3056. https://doi.org/10.3390/en18123056

6.      Wong, P. Y. L., Leung, T. M., Zhang, W., Lo, K. C. C., Guo, X., & Hu, T. (2026). Enhancing Energy Efficiency in Road Transport Systems: A Comparative Study of Australia, Hong Kong and the UK. Energies, 19(1), 266. https://doi.org/10.3390/en19010266