Advertisement

Assessing the Techno-Economic Feasibility of Solvent-Based, Critical Material Recovery from Uncertain, End-of-Life Battery Feedstock

  • Chukwunwike O. IloejeEmail author
  • Yusra Khalid
  • Joe Cresko
  • Diane J. Graziano
Conference paper
Part of the The Minerals, Metals & Materials Series book series (MMMS)

Abstract

As emerging technologies drive up demand for rare earths, value recovery from recycling end-of-life products provides an option for partially closing the material loop, conserving natural capital and enhancing resource security. Yet the techno-economic feasibility of recycling depends on uncertainties associated with the feed input to the recovery process, and the effect of these uncertainties on the viability of the recycling facility. In this study, we couple a first-principle solvent extraction model with an economic model for a separation facility and apply it to assess byproduct recovery and rare earth separation from spent nickel-metal hydride batteries, illustrating the significance of parametric uncertainties. The study shows the importance of risk-informed decision making in the investment, design, and operation of recycling facilities.

Keywords

Rare earth Critical material recovery NiMH battery recycling Solvent extraction Stochastic optimization Uncertainty analysis Gibbs energy minimization 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We wish to acknowledge Allinson Santos-Xavier (Argonne National Lab) for providing valuable discussions on optimization approaches. The submitted manuscript has been created by UChicago Argonne LLC, Operator of Argonne National Laboratory (“Argonne”). Argonne National Laboratory’s work was supported by the US Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), under contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. The US government retains for itself, and others acting on its behalf, a paid-up non-exclusive, irrevocable worldwide license in said article to reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies to the public, and perform publicly and display publicly, by or on behalf of the government. The Department of Energy will provide public access to these results of federally sponsored research in accordance with the DOE Public Access Plan. This research used resources of the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility, which is a DOE Office of Science User Facility.

References

  1. 1.
    Cooper HW, Albrecht B (2018) 21st century products: a challenging economic future. AIChE CEP magazine, no. CEP September, pp 38–44Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Du X, Graedel TE (2011) Global in-use stocks of the rare earth elements: a first estimate. Environ Sci Technol 45(9):4096–4101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Us DOE (2011) Critical materials strategy. Department of Energy, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang K et al (2017) Recovery of rare earth elements with ionic liquids. Green Chem 19(19):4469–4493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nassar NT, Xiaoyue D, Graedel TE (2015) Criticality of the rare earth elements. J Ind Ecol 19(6):1044–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reck BK, Graedel TE (2012) Challenges in metal recycling. Science 337(6095):690–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Diaz LA, Lister TE, Parkman JA, Clark GG (2016) Comprehensive process for the recovery of value and critical materials from electronic waste. J Clean Prod 125:236–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ghosh B, Ghosh MK, Parhi P, Mukherjee PS, Mishra BK (2015) Waste Printed Circuit Boards recycling: an extensive assessment of current status. J Clean Prod 94:5–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rademaker JH, Kleijn R, Yang Y (2013) Recycling as a strategy against rare earth element criticality: a systemic evaluation of the potential yield of NdFeB magnet recycling. Environ Sci Technol 47(18):10129–10136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Müller T, Friedrich B (2006) Development of a recycling process for nickel-metal hydride batteries. In: Special issue sel. paper 6th international conference lead-acid batter, LABAT 2005 Varna Bulg. 11th Asian battery conference 11 ABC Ho Chi Minh City Vietnam Together Regulation Paper, vol 158, no 2, pp 1498–1509, Aug 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sabatini JC, Field EL, Wu IC, Cox MR, Barnett BM, Coleman JT (1994) Feasibility study for the recycling of nickel metal hydride electric vehicle batteries. NREL, Colorado, Report NREL/TP-463-6153Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cucchiella F, D’Adamo I, Lenny Koh SC, Rosa P (2015) Recycling of WEEEs: an economic assessment of present and future e-waste streams. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 51:263–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nguyen RT, Diaz LA, Imholte DD, Lister TE (2017) Economic assessment for recycling critical metals from hard disk drives using a comprehensive recovery process. JOM 69(9):1546–1552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jin H, Song BD, Yih Y, Sutherland JW (2019) A bi-objective network design for value recovery of neodymium-iron-boron magnets: a case study of the United States. J Clean Prod 211:257–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Iloeje CO, Jové Colón CF, Cresko J, Graziano DJ (2019) Gibbs energy minimization model for solvent extraction with application to rare-earths recovery. Environ Sci Technol 53(13):7736–7745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Boyd S, Parikh N, Chu E, Peleato B, Eckstein J (2011) Distributed optimization and statistical learning via the alternating direction method of multipliers. Found Trends Mach Learn 3:1–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ali MM, Zhu WX (2013) A penalty function-based differential evolution algorithm for constrained global optimization. Comput Optim Appl 54(3):707–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Homaifar A, Qi CX, Lai SH (1994) Constrained optimization via genetic algorithms. Simulation 62(4):242–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Peters M, Timmerhaus K, West R (2002) Plant design and economics for chemical engineers, 5th edn. McGraw-Hill EducationGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Williams R Jr (1947) Six-tenths factor aids in approximating costs. Chem Eng Mag 54:124–125Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rodrigues LEOC, Mansur MB (2010) Hydrometallurgical separation of rare earth elements, cobalt and nickel from spent nickel–metal–hydride batteries. J Power Sour 195(11):3735–3741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rydh CJ, Svärd B (2003) Impact on global metal flows arising from the use of portable rechargeable batteries. Sci Total Environ 302(1):167–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Deutsch JL, Deutsch CV (2012) Latin hypercube sampling with multidimensional uniformity. J Stat Plan Inference 142(3):763–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Castilloux R (2016) Rare earth market outlook: supply, demand, and pricing from 2016 through 2025. Adamas intelligence, market reportGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Roskill Information Services (2019) Rare earths outlook to 2029. Roskill, UK, Market ReportGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Turk D et al. (2018) Global EV outlook 2018. International Energy Agency, Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhou Y, Gohlke D (2018) Impacts of electrification of light-duty vehicles in the United States, 2010–2017. Argonne National Laboratory, technical report ANL/ESD-18/1, 2018Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lister TE, Wang P, Anderko A (2014) Recovery of critical and value metals from mobile electronics enabled by electrochemical processing. Hydrometallurgy 149:228–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Izatt RM, Izatt SR, Izatt NE, Bruening RL, Navarro LG, Krakowiak KE (2015) Industrial applications of molecular recognition technology to separations of platinum group metals and selective removal of metal impurities from process streams. Green Chem 17(4):2236–2245. https://doi.org/10.1039/C4GC02188FCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chukwunwike O. Iloeje
    • 1
    Email author
  • Yusra Khalid
    • 1
  • Joe Cresko
    • 2
  • Diane J. Graziano
    • 3
  1. 1.Argonne National Laboratory, Energy Systems DivisionLemontUSA
  2. 2.US Department of EnergyAdvanced Manufacturing OfficeWashington, DCUSA
  3. 3.Argonne National Laboratory, Decision and Infrastructure Sciences DivisionLemontUSA

Personalised recommendations