Supply risks associated with lithium-ion battery materials

Abstract

One possibility for electrification of road transport consists of battery electric vehicles in combination with carbon-free sources of electricity. It is highly likely that lithium-ion batteries will provide the basis for this development. In the present paper, we use a recently developed, semi-quantitative assessment scheme to evaluate the relative supply risks associated with the elements used in the functional materials of six different lithium-ion battery types. Eleven different indicators in four supply risk categories are applied to each element; the weighting of the indicators is determined by external experts within the framework of an Analytic Hierarchy Process. The range of supply risk values on the elemental level is distinctly narrower than in our previous work on photovoltaic materials. The highest values are obtained for lithium and cobalt; the lowest for aluminium and titanium. Copper, iron, nickel, carbon (graphite), manganese and phosphorous form the middle group. We then carry out the assessment of the six battery types, to give comparative supply risks at the technology level. For this purpose the elemental supply risk values are aggregated using four different methods. Due to the small spread at the elemental level the supply risk values in all four aggregation methods also lie in a narrow range. Removing lithium, aluminium and phosphorous from the analysis, which are present in all types of battery, improves the situation. For aggregation with the simple arithmetic mean, an uncertainty analysis shows that only lithium-iron phosphate has a measurably lower supply risk compared to the other battery types. For the “cost-share” aggregation using seven elements, lithium cobalt oxide has a substantially higher supply risk than most other types

Understanding the future of lithium: Part 1, resource model

“…Deposits often require extensive sampling to reliably estimate the grade of the deposit and how the distribution of minerals might influence ultimate recoverability. One potential limitation of this work is the lack of consideration for short‐term supply disruptions (Helbig et al., ), or potential knock‐on effects from developing near‐by or co‐located deposits.…”

“…In addition to characterizing reserves and resources, understanding demand for lithium over time is a crucial element for understanding supply risk. Recent growth in demand for lithium is primarily from increased use in batteries, and LIBs are expected to dominate current and future lithium demand (Helbig, Bradshaw, Wietschel, Thorenz, & Tuma, ). Mohr, Mudd, and Giurco () provided historic and literature forecasts of lithium supply and demand, and carefully discussed lithium resources and reserves, as well as the ultimately recoverable resources (URR).…”

The driving power of the electron

“…However, the use of phosphate avoids cobalt's cost and environmental concerns through improper disposal, as well as the potential for the thermal runaway characteristic of cobalt-containing cells. Avoidance of cobalt, in addition, translates into reduced supply risk when compared to all the other commercial Li-ion battery technologies [22].…”

Understanding the future of lithium: Part 2, temporally and spatially resolved life‐cycle assessment modeling

“…Two key issues for LIBs and emerging technologies that rely on lithium batteries are resource constraints and environmental impacts that occur during production. Growth in demand for LIBs across a number of sectors is already placing strains on current lithium production capabilities, and will likely move production to increasingly low‐grade resources over time (Ambrose & Kendall, ; Helbig, Bradshaw, Wietschel, Thorenz, & Tuma, ). It is unclear how the dynamics of supply and demand will affect the life‐cycle environmental impacts of lithium, and thereby, the environmental impacts of technologies that rely on LIBs.…”