% 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{Ruppert:1054291,
      author       = {Ruppert, Janik and Voß, Philipp and Ihlbrock, Lukas and
                      Palm, Jakob and Lux, Simon and Leker, Jens},
      title        = {{A}nalyzing material and production costs for lithium-ion
                      and sodium-ion batteries using process-based cost modeling -
                      {C}ell{E}st 3.0},
      journal      = {Journal of power sources advances},
      volume       = {36},
      issn         = {2666-2485},
      address      = {[Amsterdam]},
      publisher    = {Elsevier ScienceDirect},
      reportid     = {FZJ-2026-01786},
      pages        = {100190 -},
      year         = {2025},
      abstract     = {In the face of rising demand for efficient and reliable
                      energy storage, this study evaluates the cost-effectiveness
                      of lithium-ion and sodium-ion batteries across pouch,
                      prismatic, and cylindrical cell formats. Introducing CellEst
                      3.0, an open-source, Excel-based model offering detailed
                      insights into material and production costs for various
                      battery chemistries and formats, including post-lithium
                      technologies such as sodium-ion batteries (SIBs). Our
                      analysis shows that NMC 811 lithium-ion cells offer the
                      highest energy density but have higher material costs due to
                      expensive cathode active material. In contrast, the
                      affordable LFP cathode active material provides cost
                      advantages over NMC. SIBs, particularly those based on NaNFM
                      111, are the most cost-effective at $54-$62 per kWh,
                      primarily due to cheaper anode active material and aluminum
                      current collector foils. Prismatic cells are identified as
                      the cost leader, supporting the industry's shift towards
                      this format despite other technological factors. Scenario
                      analysis suggests that SIBs withstand volatile market
                      conditions better due to lower material price dependency.
                      While production cost savings correlate closely with cell
                      energy, cylindrical cells are an exception due to their
                      manufacturing processes. This study underlines the value of
                      detailed cost modeling in battery development and
                      demonstrates the economic potential of sodium-ion batteries
                      in sustainable energy storage.},
      cin          = {IMD-4},
      ddc          = {621.3},
      cid          = {I:(DE-Juel1)IMD-4-20141217},
      pnm          = {1223 - Batteries in Application (POF4-122)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-1223},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.powera.2025.100190},
      url          = {https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/1054291},
}