A comparative assessment of value chain criticality of lithium-ion battery cells

Trajectories for Lithium‐Ion Battery Cost Production: Can Metal Prices Hamper the Deployment of Lithium‐Ion Batteries?

“…In the context of metals, cobalt plays a pivotal role in determining the criticality scores for various NMC cell variants. [22] Notably, its price exhibited an upward trajectory throughout 2021, starting at 37.8 US$/kg in January and peaking at 69.3 US$/kg in December. Subsequently, in April 2022, the price experienced a surge, reaching 81.7 US$/kg, followed by a gradual decline to 34.5 US$/kg.…”

“…Research by Gaines et al [53] reveals that owing to the high device complexity, recycling potentially consumes more energy compared to using virgin material. Some other works mentioned that recycling is currently unprofitable due to low rates, [22] except in Asia, [54] where there are sufficient volumes of end-of-life batteries as well as stable technology. These challenges underscore the immaturity of the recycling market and its limited potential for cost savings in the near future.…”

“…Notably, even major events such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the Russia-Ukrainian war have had minimal impact on the price of manganese, thus underscoring its political stability and resilience. [1] The meticulous analysis conducted by Manjong et al [22] further bolsters the assertion that manganese exhibits low price volatility and stands as a politically stable metal.…”

“…[12,13] Conversely, alternative academic and industry sources have provided empirical evidence of future reductions in production costs of lithium-ion batteries, projected to a range of 30-70 US $/kWh cell [13][14][15][16][17][18] by the end of the current decade. This wide range of predictions can be attributed to several factors, including the complexity of lithium-ion battery production, [19,20] the scarcity of data, [21] the volatile prices of essential metals, [22,23] unforeseen crises on a global scale, such as COVID pandemic and Russia-Ukraine war, [11,24] the disparities in the predictive methodologies, [25] and the level of investment in research and development (R&D) budgets. [18] Additionally, the market dynamics of lithium-ion batteries are characterized by uncertainty, which introduces ambiguity into projected costs.…”

Unveiling the Impact of Cross-Linking Redox-Active Polymers on Their Electrochemical Behavior by 3D Imaging and Statistical Microstructure Analysis

“…Lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) are the dominating battery technology for small-scale applications such as portable electronics and large-scale applications including (hybrid) electric vehicles. , Nevertheless, important components such as graphite, the active material for the negative electrode, as well as nickel and cobalt, composed of LiNi 1– x – y Mn x Co y O 2 as the active material for the positive electrode, are considered critical concerning their long-term supplyespecially in Europe. − To address these potential issues, alternative battery chemistries are needed that benefit from the use of more abundant elements and components. In fact, as not all applications eventually need the very high energy density provided by LIBs, sodium-ion batteries, for instance, are considered a viable (complementary) alternative. − Another alternative candidate is given by organic batteries, relying mostly on carbonideally derived from biomassas an essentially unlimited resource. − One of the most studied organic active materials for the positive electrode is poly­(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl­piperidinyloxy-4-yl methacrylate) (PTMA) owing its relatively high discharge/charge potential of about 3.6 V vs Li/Li + and excellent rate capability. − However, the dissolution of PTMA in organic electrolytes and the resulting continuous capacity loss remained an issue, hindering its practical application. − One strategy to overcome this issue relies on cross-linking the PTMA in order to decrease the solubility. ,− As a result, the PTMA-based electrodes showed higher capacities and substantially improved cycling stability compared to the non-cross-linked analogues. ,,, What remained unexplained somehow, though, is the substantially higher capacity recorded for the cross-linked PTMA despite the reduced radical concentration, the slower charge transfer kinetics, and the reduced swelling with the electrolyte .…”