Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comprehensive cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of three representative lithium-ion stationary batteries targeting a 20-year bi-daily charge–discharge service

  • LCA FOR ENERGY SYSTEMS AND FOOD PRODUCTS
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Along with the harvesting of renewable energy sources to decrease the environmental footprint of the energy sector, energy storage systems appear as a relevant solution to ensure a reliable and flexible electricity supply network. Lithium-ion (Li-ion) batteries are so far, the most widespread operational electrochemical storage system. The aim of this study is to address the lack of comprehensive cradle-to-grave environmental impact evaluation for stationary Li-ion batteries.

Materials and methods

Three stationary Li-ion batteries are assessed here: a prototype lithium iron phosphate/graphite (LFP/G) battery and two alternatives (with nickel manganese cobalt (NMC) positive electrodes and graphite (G) or lithium titanate oxide (LTO) negative electrodes). Midpoint to endpoint environmental indicators are estimated and compared using the life cycle assessment methodology. With the help of literature data, the modelling includes all auxiliary equipment (container, power electronics, etc.) and considers end-of-life (EoL) processes that are as specific as possible for each component. The evaluation accounts for two full charge equivalent per day for a 20-year period.

Results

The endpoint analysis does not enable to determine which of the NMC/G and LFP/G batteries has the lesser environmental impacts. A more detailed examination of the midpoint indicators is essential for making a choice between the two, as both present pros and cons. However, for both endpoint and midpoint indicators, the NMC/LTO battery is less impactful than the other batteries, particularly for critical categories (human toxicity, freshwater ecotoxicity and eutrophication) as it does not need any pack replacement and contains less copper. Auxiliary equipment does not contribute significantly to most of the cradle-to-grave environmental indicators, except for steel container recycling, which induces human carcinogenic toxicity. In all other categories, the screened EoL processes indicated potential net negative impacts, especially through the recycling of lithium compounds in LFP and LTO electrodes with adapted processes. Recovering the aluminium cell containers and electrode foils from dismantled cells is also significantly beneficial.

Discussions

This work provides a consistent comparison between three different battery storage systems including all auxiliary components and all life cycle stages. Reliability of the findings hinges on the selected inventories and parameters’ assumptions, most of which are derived from the literature. Sensitivity analysis has shown the significance of certain parameters, such as the battery pack’s lifespan, in determining the least impactful battery. Primary data on the battery use phase (lifespan, round-trip efficiency, depth-of-discharge) as well as a more detailed modelling of both auxiliary equipment and EoL processes would provide a more accurate picture of the associated environmental impacts. Finally, to make a choice, other criteria such as economic aspects, pack safety or criticality risks of materials should be considered.

Graphical Abstract

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
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

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

Notes

  1. U.S. DOE’s Global Energy Storage Database identifies more than 450 Li-ion stationary battery projects worldwide in 2020 (U.S. Department Of Energy (DOE) s.d.), to which residential systems shall be added.

References

  • Battery University s.d. BU-216: summary table of lithium-based batteries. [En ligne] Available at: https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/bu_216_summary_table_of_lithium_based_batteries

  • Bauer C (2010a) Oekobilanz von Lithium-Ionen Batterien - Analyse der Herstellung von Energiespeichern für den Einsatz in Batteriefahrzeugen, Studie im Auftrag von Volkswagen AG Villigen, Switzerland: s.n

  • Bauer C (2010b) Ökobilanz von Lithium-Ionen Batterien. Paul Scherrer Institut, Labor für Energiesystem-Analysen (LEA)

  • Bielitz C (2016) Environmental and economic life-cycle assessment of battery technologies for electricity storage, s.l.: s.n

  • Boyden A, Soo VK, Doolan M (2016) The environmental impacts of recycling portable lithium-ion batteries. Procedia CIRP

  • CEA-Liten P (2023) NMC vs LFP: safety and performance in operation. Dans: s.l.:s.n

  • Chen J, Li Q, Song J, Song D, Zhang L, Shi X (2016) Environmentally friendly recycling and effective repairing of cathode powders from spent LiFePO4 batteries. Green Chem 18(8):2500–2506

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chen Q, Hou Y, Lai X, Shen K, Gu H, Wang Y et al (2023) Evaluating environmental impacts of different hydrometallurgical recycling technologies of the retired nickel-manganese-cobalt batteries from electric vehicles in China. Sep Purif Technol 311:123277

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cicconi P, Landi D, Morbidoni A, Germani M (2012) Feasibility analysis of second life applications for Li-Ion cells used in electric powertrain using environmental indicators. s.l., s.n

  • Ciez RE, Whitacre J (2019) Examining different recycling processes for lithium-ion batteries. Nat Sustain 2:148–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cusenza MA, Guarino F, Longo S, Ferraro M, Cellura M (2019) Energy and environmental benefits of circular economy strategies: the case study of reusing used batteries from electric vehicles. J Energy Storage 25:100845

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn JB, Gaines L, Sullivan J, Wang MQ (2012) Impact of recycling on cradle-to-gate energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of automotive lithium-ion batteries. Environ Sci Technol 46(22):12704–12710

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn J, Ritter K, Velázquez JM, Kendall A (2023) Should high-cobalt EV batteries be repurposed? Using LCA to assess the impact of technological innovation on the waste hierarchy. J Ind Ecol 27(5):1277–1290

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ellingsen LAW, Majeau-Bettez G, Singh B, Srivastava AK, Valøen LO, Strømman AH (2014) Life cycle assessment of a lithium-ion battery vehicle pack: LCA of a Li-Ion battery vehicle pack. J Ind Ecol 18(1):113–124

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2018) Product Environmental footprint category rules for high specific energy rechargeable batteries for mobile applications, s.l.: s.n

  • European Parliament & Council (2023) Regulation of the European parliament and of the council concerning batteries and waste batteries, amending Directive 2008/98/EC and Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and repealing Directive 2006/66/EC, s.l.: s.n

  • Faria R et al (2014) Primary and secondary use of electric mobility batteries from a life cycle perspective. J Power Sources 262:169–177

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Genikomsakis KN et al (2013) A life cycle assessment of a Li-ion urban electric vehicle battery. s.l., s.n

  • Glensor K, Muñoz BMR (2019) Life-cycle assessment of brazilian transport biofuel and electrification pathways. Sustainability 11:6332

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gratz E, Sa Q, Apelian D, Wang Y (2014) A closed loop process for recycling spent lithium ion batteries. J Power Sources 262:255–262

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ha Y et al (2021) Impact of electrode thickness and temperature on the rate capability of Li4Ti5O12/LiMn2O4 cells. ECS 168:110536

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hache E et al (2019) Critical raw materials and transportation sector electrification: a detailed bottom-up analysis in world transport. Appl Energy 40:6–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harlow JE, Ma X, Li J, Logan E, Liu Y, Zhang N et al (2019) A wide range of testing results on an excellent lithium-ion cell. J Electrochem Soc 166(13):A3031–A3044

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Heelan J, Gratz E, Zheng Z, Wang Q, Chen M, Apelian D, Wang Y (2016) Current and prospective li-ion battery recycling and recovery processes. JOM 68(10):2632–2638

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hesse H, Schimpe M, Kucevic D, Jossen A (2017) Lithium-ion battery storage for the grid—a review of stationary battery storage system design tailored for applications in modern power grids. Energies 10(12):2107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiremath M, Derendorf K, Vogt T (2015) Comparative LCA of battery storage systems for stationary applications. Environ Sci Technol 49(8):4825–4833

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Huijbregts M et al (2016) A harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int J LCA 22(2):138–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IEA (2018) World energy outlook 2018. IEA, Paris. https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-outlook-2018 (License: CC BY 4.0)

  • IEA (2019) s.d. World energy outlook. All rights reserved. s.l.:s.n

  • Jaiswal A (2017) Lithium-ion battery based renewable energy solution for off-grid electricity: a techno-economic analysis. Renew Sust Energ Rev 72:922–934

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Jasper FB et al (2022) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of a battery home storage system based on primary data. J Clean Prod 366:132899

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kang DHP, Chen M, Ogunseitan OA (2013) Potential environmental and human health impacts of rechargeable lithium batteries in electronic waste. Environ Sci Technol 47:5495–5503

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Laucournet R, Barthelemy S, Diaferia N (2016) Method for recycling lithium batteries and/or electrodes of such batteries. France, Brevet n° US 9,312,581 B2

  • Lavergne R, Pavel I, Faucheux I Mars (2019) Stockage stationnaire d'électricité. Synthèse et recommandations du thème de l’année 2018 de la Section ICM du CGE, Paris: s.n

  • Li H et al (2017) Recovery of lithium, iron, and phosphorus from spent LiFePO4 batteries using stoichiometric sulfuric acid leaching system. ACS Sustain Chem Eng 5:8017–8024

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lombardi L, Tribioli L, Cozzolino R, Bella G (2017) Comparative environmental assessment of conventional, electric, hybrid, and fuel cell powertrains based on LCA. Int J LCA 22:1989–2006

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Majeau-Bettez G, Hawkins TR, Strømman AH (2011) Life cycle environmental assessment of lithium-ion and nickel metal hydride batteries for plug-in hybrid and battery electric vehicles. Environ Sci Technol 45:4548–4554

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Melin HE (2019) State-of-the-art in reuse and recycling of lithium-ion batteries – a research review. Circular Energy Storage

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohr M, Peters JF, Baumann M, Weil M (2020) Toward a cell-chemistry specific life cycle assessment of lithium-ion battery recycling processes. J Ind Ecol 24(6):1310–1322

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Munzke N, Schwarz B, Büchle F, Hiller M (2021) Evaluation of the efficiency and resulting electrical and economic losses of photovoltaic home storage systems. J Energy Storage 33:101724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakajima K et al (2008) Substance flow analysis of zinc associated with iron and steel cycle in Japan, and Environmental assessment of eaf dust recycling process. ISIJ Int 48(10):1478–1483

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Notter D et al (2010) Contribution of Li-ion batteries to the environmental impact of electric vehicle. Environ Sci Technol 44:6550–6556

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nykvist B, Nilsson M (2015) Rapidly falling costs of battery packs for electric vehicles. Nat Clim Chang 5:329–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oliveira L et al (2015) Environmental performance of electricity storage systems for grid applications, a life cycle approach. Energy Convers Manag 101:326–335

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Olivetti EA, Ceder G, Gaustad GG, Fu X (2017) Lithium-ion battery supply chain considerations: analysis of potential bottlenecks in critical metals. Joule 1(2):229–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pellow MA, Ambrose H, Mulvaney D, Betita R, Shaw S (2020) Research gaps in environmental life cycle assessments of lithium ion batteries for grid-scale stationary energy storage systems: end-of-life options and other issues. Sustain Mater Technol 23:e00120

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peters JF, Weil M (2017) Aqueous hybrid ion batteries – an environmentally friendly alternative for stationary energy storage? J Power Sources 364:258–265

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Peters JF, Weil M (2018) Providing a common base for life cycle assessments of Li-ion batteries. J Clean Prod 171:704–713

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters JF, Baumann M, Binderd JR, Weilce M (2021) On the environmental competitiveness of sodium-ion batteries under a full life cycle perspective – a cell-chemistry specific modelling approach. Sustain Energy Fuels 5(24):6414–6429

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Preger Y, Barkholtz HM, Fresquez A, Campbell DL, Juba BW, Romàn-Kustas J et al (2020) Degradation of commercial lithium-ion cells as a function of chemistry and cycling conditions. J Electrochem Soc 167(12):120532

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan NA, Lin Y, Mitchell-Ward N, Mathieu JL, Johnson JX (2018) Use-phase drives lithium-ion battery life cycle environmental impacts when used for frequency regulation. Environ Sci Technol 52(17):10163–10174

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schauf M, Schwenen S (2023) System price dynamics for battery storage. Energy Policy 183:113836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schimpe M, Naumann M, Truong N, Hesse HC, Santhanagopalan S, Saxon A, Jossen A (2018) Energy efficiency evaluation of a stationary lithium-ion battery container storage system via electro-thermal modeling and detailed component analysis. Appl Energy 210:211–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song X, Hu T, Liang C, Long HL, Zhou L, Song W et al (2017) Direct regeneration of cathode materials from spent lithium iron phosphate batteries using a solid phase sintering method. RSC Adv 7(8):4783–4790

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stougie L et al (2019) Multi-dimensional life cycle assessment of decentralised energy storage systems. Energy 182:535–543

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsiropoulos I, Tarvydas D, Lebedeva N (2018a) Li-ion batteries for mobility and stationary storage applications – scenarios for costs and market growth, EUR 29440 EN. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsiropoulos I, Tarvydas D, Lebedeva N (2018b) Li-ion batteries for mobility and stationary storage applications – scenarios for costs and market growth, EUR 29440 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg s.l.: s.n

  • U.S. Department Of Energy (DOE), s.d. https://www.sandia.gov/ess-ssl/global-energy-storage-database-home/. [En ligne]

  • van Westing E, Savran V, Hofman J (2013) Recycling of metals from coatings. A desk study, Delft, The Netherlands: s.n.

  • Vandepaer L, Cloutier J, Bauer C, Amor B (2019) Integrating batteries in the future swiss electricity supply system: a consequential environmental assessment. J Ind Ecol 23(3):709–725

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wang W, Choi D, Yang Z (2013) Li-ion battery with LiFePO4 cathode and Li4Ti5O12 anode for stationary energy storage. Metall Mater Trans A 44(S1):21–22

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weber S, Peters JF, Baumann M, Weil M (2018) Life cycle assessment of a vanadium redox flow battery. Environ Sci Technol 52:10864–10873

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Xiong S, Ji J, Maa X (2020) Environmental and economic evaluation of remanufacturing lithium-ion batteries from electric vehicles. Waste Manage 102:579–586

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yaws CL (1996) Handbook of thermodynamic diagrams. Gulf Pub. Co., Huston

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin R, Hu S, Yang Y (2019) Life cycle inventories of the commonly used materials for lithium-ion batteries in China. J Clean Prod 227(6):960–971

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yudhistira R, Khatiwada D, Sanchez F (2022) A comparative life cycle assessment of lithium-ion and lead-acid batteries for grid energy storage. J Clean Prod 358:131999

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zackrisson M, Avellán L, Orlenius J (2010) Life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles – critical issues. J Clean Prod 18(15):1519–1529

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zeng X, Li J, Singh N (2014) Recycling of spent lithium-ion battery: a critical review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 44(10):1129–1165

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zubi G, Dufo-Lópeza R, Carvalhob M, Pasaogluc G (2018) The lithium-ion battery: state of the art and future perspective. Renew Sust Energ Rev 89:292–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Formerly IFP Energies Nouvelles, 1 et 4 avenue de Bois-Préau, 92852, Rueil-Malmaison, France

    H. Bewi Komesse

  2. IFP Energies Nouvelles, 1 et 4 avenue de Bois-Préau, 92852, Rueil-Malmaison, France

    M. Lucas, S. Duval—Dachary & S. Beauchet

Authors
  1. H. Bewi Komesse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Lucas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Duval—Dachary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Beauchet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Lucas.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Communicated by Vanessa Bach.

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 (DOCX 282 KB)

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Komesse, H.B., Lucas, M., Duval—Dachary, S. et al. A comprehensive cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment of three representative lithium-ion stationary batteries targeting a 20-year bi-daily charge–discharge service. Int J Life Cycle Assess (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-024-02303-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-024-02303-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation