Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An improved resource midpoint characterization method for supply risk of resources: integrated assessment of Li-ion batteries

  • LIFE CYCLE SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

We observe a methodological gap for assessing impacts within the Area of Protection (AoP) Natural Resources in LCA with regard to concerns about the accessibility to raw materials. Adding criticality considerations as a complement to environmental LCA addresses abiotic resources accessibility. We present a study that integrates and applies an improved GeoPolRisk midpoint and the published GeoPolEndpoint methods as valuable enhancements to the current pool of available impact methods in LCA.

Methods

GeoPolEndpoint, an extension of the GeoPolRisk method, was designed to quantify the impacts of the use of raw materials from a criticality perspective at the endpoint level. We present an integrated characterization model including an improved midpoint method, which truly takes into account the mass flow extracted for a product, to operationalize the use of these methods at both midpoint and endpoint level within LCIA. We study the impacts of four relevant metals (Al, Co, Cu, and Ni) in the life cycle of lithium-ion batteries (LIB) for the years 2015 to 2017 from the perspective of the EU. Inventory data are based on previously published studies with a detailed bill of materials for two types of LIB. As part of an integrated assessment, results at midpoint and endpoint levels were compared to other impact categories within the context of an attributional LCA.

Results and discussion

From the analyzed raw materials, copper and nickel contribute significantly to environmental impacts; however, cobalt has a high geopolitical supply risk indicator and higher contribution at the GeoPolEndpoint despite its relatively low contribution to the environmental footprint of LIB. Results show the importance of specific raw materials present in small quantities, but with a high contribution when applying a criticality lens as a complement to LCA. The new method has the potential to be operationalized in LCA studies and to provide new insights on supply risk during product development.

Conclusions

Impacts of the use of raw materials deemed critical are not only restricted to an environmental dimension; we can model socio-economic impacts through a criticality perspective. The GeoPolRisk and GeoPolEndpoint methods allow the integration of a supply risk perspective into LCA studies. With the introduction and development of new technologies, the evaluation of raw material criticality in LCA becomes an important complement to environmental indicators. This case study provides a baseline for future applications of the method to products and technologies that require the use of critical raw materials throughout their life cycle.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

All data generated during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

References

  • André H, Ljunggren M (2021) Towards comprehensive assessment of mineral resource availability? Complementary roles of life cycle, life cycle sustainability and criticality assessments. Resour Conserv Recy 167:105396

  • Bach V, Berger M, Henßlerb M, Kirchner M, Leiser S, Mohrm L, Rother E, Ruhland K, Schneider L, Tikana L, Volkhausen W, Walachowicz F, Finkbeiner M (2016) Integrated method to assess resource efficiency – ESSENZ. J Clean Prod 137:118–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berger M, Sonderegger T, Alvarenga R, Bach V, Cimprich A, Dewulf J, Frischknecht R, Guinée J, Helbig C, Huppertz T, Jolliet O, Motoshita M, Northey S, Peña C, Rugani B, Sahnoune A, Schrijvers D, Schulze R, Sonnemann G, Valero A, Wedeima B, Young SB (2020) Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment: part II – recommendations on application-dependent use of existing methods and on future method development needs. Int J Life Cycle Asses 25(4):798–813. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01737-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beylot A, Ardente F, Sala S, Zampori L (2021) Mineral resource dissipation in life cycle inventories. Int J Life Cycle Asses 26:497–510

    Google Scholar 

  • Charpentier-Poncelet A, Helbig C, Loubet P, Beylot A, Muller S, Villeneuve J, Laratte B, Thorenz A, Tuma A, Sonnemann G (2021) Life cycle impact assessment methods for estimating the impacts of dissipative flows of metals. J Ind Ecol 25(2021):1177–1193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cimprich A, Karim KS, Young SB (2017a) Extending the geopolitical supply risk method: Material “substitutability” indicators applied to electric vehicles and dental X-ray equipment. Int J Life Cycle Asses 23(10):2024–2042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cimprich A, Young SB, Helbig C, Gemechu ED, Thorenz A, Tuma A, Sonnemann G (2017b) Extension of geopolitical supply risk methodology: characterization model applied to conventional and electric vehicles. J Clean Prod 162:754–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cimprich A, Bach V, Helbig C, Thorenz A, Schrijvers D, Sonnemann G, Young SB, Sonderegger T, Berger M (2019) Raw material criticality assessment as a complement to environmental life cycle assessment: examining methods for product-level supply risk assessment. J Ind Ecol 23(2019):1226–1236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finnveden G, Hauschild M, Ekvall T, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Hellweg S, Koehler A, Pennington D, Suh S (2009) Recent developments in life cycle assessment. J Environ Manag 91:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frischknecht R, Fantke P, Tschumperlin L, Niero M, Antón A et al (2019) Global guidance on environmental life cycle impact assessment indicators: volume 2. UNEP Life Cycle Initiative

  • Gemechu ED, Sonnemann G, Young SB (2016) Geopolitical-related supply risk assessment as a complement to environmental impact assessment: the case of electric vehicles. Int J Life Cycle Asses. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0917-4G

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gemechu ED, Helbig C, Sonnemann G, Thorenz A, Tuma A (2015) Import-based Indicator for the geopolitical supply risk of raw materials in life cycle sustainability assessments. J Ind Ecol 20(1):154–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GreenDelTa (2020) OpenLCA. Accessed Nov, 2020. Available from: https://www.openlca.org/openlca/new/

  • Guinée J, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Wegener A, Suh S, Udo de Haes A (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards, ed. J. Guinée. Springer Netherlands

  • Guinée J, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Zamagni A, Masoni P, Buonamici R, Ekvall T, Rydberg T (2011) Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. Environ Sci Technol 45:90–96. https://doi.org/10.1021/es101316v

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Guinée JB, Heijungs R (1995) A proposal for the definition of resource equivalency factors for use in product life-cycle assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 14(5):917–925. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5620140525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins TR, Gausen OM, Strømman AH (2012) Environmental impacts of hybrid and electric vehicles—a review. Int J Life Cycle Asses 17:997–1014

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins TR, Singh B, Majeau-Bettez G, Strømman AH (2013) Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional and electric vehicles. J Ind Ecol 17:53–64

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Helbig C, Gemechu ED, Pillain B, Young SB, Thorenz A, Tuma A, Sonnemann G (2016) Extending the geopolitical supply risk indicator: application of life cycle sustainability assessment to the petrochemical supply chain of polyacrylonitrile-based carbon fibers. J Clean Prod 137:1170–1178

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huijbregts MAJ, Steinmann ZJN, Elshout PMF, Stam G, Verones F, Vieira M, Zijp M, Hollander A, van Zelm R (2016) ReCiPe 2016 A harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM)

  • Itsubo N, Inaba A (2012) LIME2: Life-cycle impact assessment method based on endpoint modeling

  • Koyamparambath A, Santillán-Saldivar J, McLellan B, Sonnemann G (2022) Supply risk evolution of raw materials for batteries and fossil fuels for selected OECD countries (2000–2018). Resour Policy 75:102465

  • Mancini L, Sala S, Recchioni M, Benini L, Goralczyk M, Pennington D (2015) Potential of life cycle assessment for supporting the management of critical raw materials. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20:100–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordelöf A, Messagie M, Tillman AM, Soderman ML, van Mierlo J (2014) Environmental impacts of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and battery electric vehicles—what can we learn from life cycle assessment? Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1866–1890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Notter D, Gauch M, Widmer R, Wager P, Stamp A, Zah R, Althaus HJ (2010) Contribution of Li-ion batteries to the environmental impact of electric vehicles. Environ Sci Technol  44(17):6550–6556. https://doi.org/10.1021/es903729a

  • Peters J, Weil M (2016) A critical assessment of the resource depletion potential of current and future lithium-ion batteries. Resources 5(4): 46. http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/5/4/46. Accessed 14 Dec 2016

  • Peters J, and Weil M (2017) Providing a common base for life cycle assessments of Li-ion batteries. J Clean Prod 171.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.016

  • Ponsioen TC, Vieira M, Goedkoop M (2014) Surplus cost as a life cycle impact indicator for fossil resource scarcity. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19(4):872–881

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME, Kramer MR (2006) Strategy & Society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harv Bus Rev 84:78–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Sah R, Wada K (2003) Can government collect resources without hurting investors? Taxation of returns from assets. In Economics for an Imperfect World, ed. by Richard Arnott, Bruce C.N. Greenwald, Ravi Kanbur and Barry Nalebuff, 419–437. Cambridge: MIT Press

  • Santillán-Saldivar J, Gaugler T, Helbig C, Rathgeber A, Sonnemann G, Thorenz A, Tuma A (2020) Design of an endpoint indicator for mineral resource supply risks in life cycle sustainability assessment The case of Li-ion batteries. J Ind Ecol 2020:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13094

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Santillán-Saldivar J, Cimprich A, Shaikh N, Laratte B, Young SB, Sonnemann G (2021) How recycling mitigates supply risks of critical raw materials: extension of the geopolitical supply risk methodology applied to information and communication technologies in the European Union. Resour Conserv Recy 164:2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider L, Berger M, Schuler-Hainsch E, Knofel S, Ruhland K, Mosig J, Bach V, Finkbeiner M (2014) The economic resource scarcity potential (ESP) for evaluating resource use based on life cycle assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:601–610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonderegger T, Dewulf J, Fantke P, Maia de Souza D, Pfister S, Stoessel F, Verones F, Vieira M, Wedeima B, Hellweg S (2017) Towards harmonizing natural resources as an area of protection in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 22(12):1912–1927

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonderegger T, Berger M, Alvarenga R, Bach V, Cimprich A, Dewulf J, Frischknecht R et al (2020) Mineral resources in life cycle impact assessment—part I: a critical review of existing methods. The Int J Life Cycle Assess 25(4):784–797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01736-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnemann G, Gemechu ED, Adibi N, De Bruille V, Bulle C (2015) From a critical review to a conceptual framework for integrating the criticality of resources into Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment. J Clean Prod. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.01.082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sovacool BK, Martiskainen M, Hook A, Baker L (2019) Decarbonization and its discontents: a critical energy justice perspective on four low-carbon transitions. Clim Change 155(4):581–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sovacool BK, Hook A, Martiskainen M, Brock A, Turnheim B (2020) The decarbonisation divide: contextualizing landscapes of low-carbon exploitation and toxicity in Africa. Glob Environ Change 60:102028

  • Thomson Reuters (2019) Thomson Reuters Datastream. Subscription Service. Accessed 2 Dec 2019

  • Udo de Haes HA, Lindeijer E (2002) The conceptual structure of life-cycle impact assessment. Life-cycle Impact Assessment: Striving Towards Best Practice. The Society of Environ- mental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), USA, pp 209–225

    Google Scholar 

  • van Oers L, Guinée JB (2016) The abiotic depletion potential: background, updates, and future. Resources 5(1):16. http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/5/1/16

  • van Oers L, Guinée JB, Heijungs R, Schulze R, Alvarenga R, Dewulf J, Drielsma J, Sanjuan-Delmás D, Kampmann T, Bark G, Garcia-Uriarte A, Menger P, Lindblom M, Alcon L, Sevilla-Ramos M, Escobar-Torres JM (2020) Top-down characterization of resource use in LCA: from problem definition of resource use to operational characterization factors for dissipation of elements to the environment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 25:2255–2273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Oers L, de Koning A, Guinée JB, Huppes G (2002) Abiotic resource depletion in LCA: Improving characterization factors for abiotic resource depletion as recommended in the new Dutch LCA Handbook

  • United Nations (2020) UN Comtrade Database. (https://comtrade.un.org/) Accessed Jun 2020

  • USGS (2016) Mineral commodity summaries 2015. (https://www.usgs.gov/centers/nmic/mineral-commodity-summaries) Accessed Jan 2019

  • USGS (2017) Mineral commodity summaries 2016. (https://www.usgs.gov/centers/nmic/mineral-commodity-summaries) Accessed Jan 2019

  • USGS (2018) Mineral commodity summaries 2017. (https://www.usgs.gov/centers/nmic/mineral-commodity-summaries) Accessed Jan 2019

  • Vieira M, Ponsioen T, Goedkoop M, Huijbregts M (2016) Surplus cost potential as a life cycle impact indicator for metal extraction. Resources 5(1):2. http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/5/1/2

  • Wernet G, Bauer C, Steubing B, Reinhard J, Moreno-Ruiz E, Wedeima B (2016) The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21(9):1218–1230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2019) The worldwide governance indicators. Retrieved from http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#home. Access: Jan 2020

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UMR 5255, Université de Bordeaux, ISM, 33400, Talence, France

    Jair Santillán-Saldivar & Guido Sonnemann

  2. UMR5255, CNRS, ISM, 33400, Talence, France

    Jair Santillán-Saldivar & Guido Sonnemann

  3. School of Environment, Enterprise and Development, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West, Waterloo, ON, Canada

    Jair Santillán-Saldivar & Steven B. Young

  4. Department of Mechanical Engineering, 10-263 Donadeo Innovation Centre for Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6G 1H9, Canada

    Eskinder Gemechu

  5. French Geological Survey (BRGM), BP 36009, 45060, Orléans Cedex 2, France

    Stéphanie Muller & Jacques Villeneuve

Authors
  1. Jair Santillán-Saldivar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eskinder Gemechu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stéphanie Muller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jacques Villeneuve
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Steven B. Young
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Guido Sonnemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guido Sonnemann.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Matthias Finkbeiner

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (XLSX 51 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Santillán-Saldivar, J., Gemechu, E., Muller, S. et al. An improved resource midpoint characterization method for supply risk of resources: integrated assessment of Li-ion batteries. Int J Life Cycle Assess 27, 457–468 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02027-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02027-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation