% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Gutsch:1019569,
      author       = {Gutsch, Moritz and Leker, Jens},
      title        = {{C}osts, carbon footprint, and environmental impacts of
                      lithium-ion batteries – {F}rom cathode active material
                      synthesis to cell manufacturing and recycling},
      journal      = {Applied energy},
      volume       = {353},
      number       = {B},
      issn         = {0306-2619},
      address      = {Amsterdam [u.a.]},
      publisher    = {Elsevier Science},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2023-05506},
      pages        = {122132 -},
      year         = {2024},
      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.},
      cin          = {IEK-12},
      ddc          = {620},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IEK-12-20141217},
      pnm          = {1222 - Components and Cells (POF4-122)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-1222},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      UT           = {WOS:001092589000001},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.122132},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1019569},
}