Abstract
Battery storage technologies such as redox flow batteries (RFBs) and lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) are appealing candidates for large-scale energy storage requirements to support the integration of renewable energy into electric grids. To ensure that their environmental benefits outweigh the environmental costs of producing battery storage systems, it is vital to assess the potential health impacts of battery materials and waste emissions during production. Here, we present a case study based on life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) to characterize the toxicity hazard associated with the production of six types of battery storage technologies including three RFBs [vanadium redox flow battery (VRFB), zinc-bromine flow battery (ZBFB), and the all-iron flow battery (IFB)], and three LIBs [lithium iron phosphate (LFP), lithium nickel cobalt manganese hydroxide (NCM), and lithium manganese oxide (LMO)]. USETox® v2.0 (USETox®) was used for LCIA and we found higher impacts found higher impacts on human health outcomes for the production of LIBs than for RFBs, noting that uncertainties associated with the characterization factors demand caution in interpreting the results. Overall, the study provides (1) a comprehensive evaluation of life cycle impacts for materials, components, and systems associated with the production of burgeoning six battery energy storage technologies and (2) an important foundation for the identification of battery technologies with lower potential negative impacts associated with integrating energy storage in strategies for upscaling renewable energy sources.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
California Senate Bill No. 32, 2015–2016. California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: emissions limit
California Senate Bill No. 100, 2017–2018. California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: emissions of greenhouse gases. 2017–2018
Wood DL III, Li J, Daniel C (2015) Prospects for reducing the processing cost of lithium-ion batteries. J Power Sources 275:234–242
Tian S, He H, Kendall A, Davis SJ, Ogunseitan OA, Schoenung JM, Samuelsen S, Tarroja B (2021) Environmental benefit-detriment thresholds for flow battery energy storage systems: a case study in California. Appl Energy 300:117354
Liang Y, Su J, Xi B, Yu Y, Ji D, Sun Y, Cui C, Zhu J (2017) Life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries for greenhouse gas emissions. Resour Conserv Recycl 117:285–293
Weber S, Peters JF, Baumann M, Weil M (2018) Life cycle assessment of a vanadium redox flow battery. Environ Sci Technol 52(18):10864–10873
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
Whitehead AH, Rabbow TJ, Trampert M, Pokorny P (2017) Critical safety features of the vanadium redox flow battery. J Power Sources 351:1–7
Park YJ, Kim MK, Kim HS, Lee BM (2018) Risk assessment of lithium-ion battery explosion: chemical leakages. J Toxicol Environ Health, Part B 21(6–8):370–381
He H, Tian S, Tarroja B, Ogunseitan OA, Samuelsen S, Schoenung JM (2020) Flow battery production: materials selection and environmental impact. J Clean Prod 269:121740
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(10):4548–4554
Notter DA, 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. Envrion Sci Technol 44(17):6550–6556
Ecoinvent, version 3.4. https://www.ecoinvent.org
SimaPro. https://simapro.com
Hauschild MZ, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, MacLeod M, Margni M, van de Meent D, Rosenbaum RK, McKone TE (2008) Building a model based on scientific consensus for life cycle impact assessment of chemicals: the search for harmony and parsimony. Environ Sci Technol 42(19):7032–7037
Henderson AD, Hauschild MZ, van de Meent D, Huijbregts MA, Larsen HF, Margni M, McKone TE, Payet J, Rosenbaum RK, Jolliet O (2011) USEtox fate and ecotoxicity factors for comparative assessment of toxic emissions in life cycle analysis: sensitivity to key chemical properties. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(8):701–709
Rosenbaum RK, Bachmann TM, Gold LS, Huijbregts MA, Jolliet O, Juraske R, Koehler A, Larsen HF, MacLeod M, Margni M, McKone TE (2008) USEtox—the UNEP-SETAC toxicity model: recommended characterisation factors for human toxicity and freshwater ecotoxicity in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13(7):532–546
USETox® Frequently Asked Questions. https://usetox.org/faq#t23n119
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the funding provided by the California Energy Commission under Agreement # EPC-16-039. The authors would also like to acknowledge the funding from the Lincoln Dynamic Foundation World Institute for Sustainable Development of Materials (WISDOM) at the University of California, Irvine.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society
About this paper
Cite this paper
He, H. et al. (2022). Potential Health Impact Assessment of Large-Scale Production of Batteries for the Electric Grid. In: Lazou, A., Daehn, K., Fleuriault, C., Gökelma, M., Olivetti, E., Meskers, C. (eds) REWAS 2022: Developing Tomorrow’s Technical Cycles (Volume I). The Minerals, Metals & Materials Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92563-5_43
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92563-5_43
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-92562-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-92563-5
eBook Packages: Chemistry and Materials ScienceChemistry and Material Science (R0)