No abstract

Sustainable battery production with low environmental footprints requires a systematic assessment of the entire value chain, from raw material extraction and processing to battery production and recycling. In order to explore and understand the variations observed in the reported footprints of raw battery materials, it is vital to re-assess the footprints of these material value chains. Identifying the causes of these variations by combining engineering and environmental system analysis expands our knowledge of the footprints of these battery materials. This article disaggregates the value chains of six raw battery materials (aluminum, copper, graphite, lithium carbonate, manganese, and nickel) and identifies the sources of variabilities (levers) for each process along each value chain. We developed a parametric attributional process-based life cycle model to explore the effect of these levers on the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of the value chains, expressed in kg of CO2e. The parametric life cycle inventory model is used to conduct distinct life cycle assessments (LCA) for each material value chain by varying the identified levers within defined engineering ranges. 570 distinct LCAs are conducted for the aluminum value chain, 450 for copper, 170 for graphite, 39 for lithium carbonate via spodumene, 20 for lithium carbonate via brine, 260 for manganese, and 440 for nickel. Three-dimensional representations of these results for each value chain in kg of CO2e are presented as contour plots with gradient lines illustrating the intensity of lever combinations on the GHG emissions. The results of this study convey multidimensional insights into how changes in the lever settings of value chains yield variations in the overall GHG emissions of the raw materials. Parameterization of these value chains forms a flexible and high-resolution backbone, leading towards a more reliable life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries (LIB).

The decarbonization of the transport sector requires a rapid expansion of global battery production and an adequate supply with raw materials currently produced in small volumes. We investigate whether battery production can be a bottleneck in the expansion of electric vehicles and specify the investment in capital and skills required to manage the transition. This may require a battery production rate in the range of 4–12 TWh/year, which entails the use of 19–50 Mt/year of materials. Strengthening the battery value chain requires a global effort in many sectors of the economy that will need to grow according to the battery demand, to avoid bottlenecks along the supply chains. Significant investment for the establishment of production facilities (150–300 billion USD in the next 30 years) and the employment of a large global workforce (400k–1 million) with specific knowledge and skillset are essential. However, the employment and investment required are uncertain given the relatively early development stage of the sector, the continuous advancements in the technology and the wide range of possible future demand. Finally, the deployment of novel battery technologies that are still in the development stage could reduce the demand for critical raw materials and require the partial or total redesign of production and recycling facilities affecting the investment needed for each factory.

No abstract

The foreseen high penetration of fluctuant renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, will cause an increased need for batteries to store the energy produced and not instantaneously consumed. Due to the high production cost and significant environmental impacts associated with the production of lithium-ion nickel-manganese-cobalt (Li-ion NMC) batteries, several chemistries are proposed as a potential substitute. This study aims to identify and compare the lifecycle environmental impacts springing from a novel Al-ion battery, with the current state-of-the-art chemistry, i.e., Li-ion NMC. The global warming potential (GWP) indicator was selected to express the results due to its relevance to society, policy and to facilitate the comparison of our results with other research. The cradle-to-grave process-based assessment uses two functional units: (1) per-cell manufactured and (2) per-Wh of storage capacity. The results identified the battery’s production as the highest carbon intensity phase, being the energy usage the main contributor to GWP. In general, the materials and process involved in the manufacturing and recycling of the novel battery achieve a lower environmental impact in comparison to the Li-ion technology. However, due to the Al-ion’s low energy density, a higher amount of materials are needed to deliver equivalent performance than a Li-ion.