Gast ::
| Hauptseite > Workflowsammlungen > Publikationsgebühren > Costs, carbon footprint, and environmental impacts of lithium-ion batteries – From cathode active material synthesis to cell manufacturing and recycling |
| Hauptseite > Workflowsammlungen > Publikationsgebühren > Costs, carbon footprint, and environmental impacts of lithium-ion batteries – From cathode active material synthesis to cell manufacturing and recycling |
| Journal Article | FZJ-2023-05506 |
;
2024
Elsevier Science
Amsterdam [u.a.]
This record in other databases: 
Please use a persistent id in citations: doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.122132 doi:10.34734/FZJ-2023-05506
Abstract: Strong growth in lithium-ion battery (LIB) demand requires a robust understanding of both costs and environmental impacts across the value-chain. Recent announcements of LIB manufacturers to venture into cathode active material (CAM) synthesis and recycling expands the process segments under their influence. However, little research has yet provided combined costs and environmental impact assessments across several segments of the LIB value-chain. To address this gap, we provide a combined cost assessment and life cycle assessment (LCA), covering CAM synthesis, cell manufacturing and hydrometallurgy recycling. 1 kWh cell capacity (NMC811-C) is chosen as functional unit. Results for cell manufacturing in the United States show total cell costs of $94.5 kWh−1, a global warming potential (GWP) of 64.5 kgCO2eq kWh−1, and combined environmental impacts (normalizing and weighing 16 impact categories) of 4.0 × 10−12 kWh−1. Material use contributes 69% to costs and 93% to combined environmental impacts. Energy demand, meanwhile, accounts for 35% of GWP. Initially, hydrometallurgy recycling adds 5 to 10% to total costs, GWP, and environmental impacts. Including recycling credits, as recycled material substitutes new virgin material, shows benefits for recycling. Combined environmental impacts benefit most from recycling (−75%), followed by costs (−44%) and GWP (−37%). Further, we present a comprehensive dashboard which reveals how different scenarios, such as, using wind power instead of grid electricity, influence costs, GWP, and environmental impacts across process segments. Switching to low-carbon energy, for example, reduces GWP more than recycling would. Also, our dashboard shows that recycling or low scrap are more suitable options if reduction of costs or combined environmental impacts is the objective.
; 
; 
; Clarivate Analytics Master Journal List ; Current Contents - Engineering, Computing and Technology ; Ebsco Academic Search ; Essential Science Indicators ; IF >= 10 ; JCR ; SCOPUS ; Science Citation Index Expanded ; Web of Science Core Collection
|
The record appears in these collections: |
PDF