Comparison of three typical lithium-ion batteries for pure electric vehicles from the perspective of life cycle assessment

Abstract

In the present study, environmental impacts of lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) has become a concern due the large-scale production and application. The present paper aims to quantify the potential environmental impacts of three LIBs in terms of life cycle assessment (LCA), as well as to identify hotpots and ways to reduce the environmental impacts. Three different batteries are compared in this study: lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries, lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (NCM) 811 batteries and NCM622 batteries. The results show that the environmental impacts caused by LIBs is mainly re ected in ve aspects from eleven evaluation indexes. They are abiotic depletion (fossil fuels), global warming (GWP 100a), human toxicity, fresh water aquatic ecotox and marine aquatic ecotoxicity. Besides, the "Production phase" and "Assembly phase" of LIBs are the main sources of carbon emissions, the GHG emission of NCM622 battery is 1576 kg CO 2 -eq/kWh, which accounts for 37.5% of the total GHG emissions. The study shows that the hydrometallurgical method in the "Recycle phase" may not always be environmentally friendly, it can increase the indicators of human toxicity, fresh water aquatic ecotox and marine aquatic ecotoxicity. The precursor materials in NCM batteries and the electricity consumption of LFP batteries are sensitive factors to environmental impacts, which can be effectively improved by improving the process and optimizing the power structure. The ndings are likely to provide the LIBs manufacturing sector with data. Suggestions for process optimization of China's LIBs industry were proposed based on the adjustment projection of China's LIB industry.

The Cobalt Supply Chain and Environmental Life Cycle Impacts of Lithium-Ion Battery Energy Storage Systems

“…For example, GWP is the lowest in this study, while TETP is the highest by an order of magnitude. Interestingly, the same study (Jiang et al (2023) [74]) that reports the lowest TETP reports an METP that is 10,000 times larger than that found in this study (for the same battery chemistry). Peters et al (2017) [42], in their review of the literature at the time, reported a range of 40 to 250 kg CO 2eq per kWh.…”