The IEA expects that over half of the additional global electricity supply in will come from renewable sources. For small installations in remote locations and islands, installing battery-systems to accompany renewable energy generation is relatively easy and cost-effective.
It also reduces the need for high-pollution diesel generators. Electric vehicles and storage systems have become more competitive alternatives to conventional vehicles and stationary energy installations.
But there are still technical, economic and environmental challenges that the global community as a whole has to address in order to build a fossil fuel-free economy. This last section considers the role of governments in promoting the uptake of Li-ion batteries to build a fossil fuel-free economy see figure 9. Fiscal support can catalyze such efforts by improving their financial returns, but governments must also account for the significant uncertainty of the cost of such support.
A review of policies in countries playing major roles in Li-ion battery development shows that direct subsidies are generally favoured over tax instruments as a form of fiscal support. These government-funded programmes typically take a long-term perspective 4—10 years. Firms are expected to shoulder more financial responsibility as the technology becomes more mature; firms conducting battery research could get per cent government funding at the early stage of the programme but receive between 50 to 67 per cent as the technology approaches commercialization.
A key cost component of the Li-ion battery production is the price of its raw materials, including lithium, cobalt, graphite and manganese. Maintaining the price stability of these materials would involve close monitoring of their production and price cycles and employing appropriate strategies to mitigate price volatility and prevent supply shortfalls. These could include strategic stockpiling of raw materials. McKinsey reported that countries have been engaging in strategic stockpiling of cobalt.
Expanding efforts to recycle raw materials could also help to address concerns over supply security and price stability. Policymakers should be aware that key materials, such as lithium and cobalt, are produced only in a few countries and, in some instances, their supplies could hardly catch up with rapidly increasing demand see box 2.
Producing countries have often restricted exports of the materials for political gains. There have also been concerns about social and environmental impacts of mining the mineral in the country. Similar concerns have also been raised in several lithium-producing countries. The battery pack is the single most expensive part of an electric vehicle, accounting for about 30 per cent of the total cost to consumers. The cost of producing Li-ion batteries can be further reduced through economies of scale.
Certain industrial policies can help to expand domestic productive capabilities, which could include incentive-linked performance requirements, targeted investment promotion in manufacturing facilities, and supplier development programmes. Improving forecasting to better inform investment on capacity expansion would also be important. To encourage firms to build production capacities for advanced batteries, India announced in a multi-billion-dollar production-linked incentive scheme that will begin with cash and infrastructure incentives Singh, It is reported that, under this type of scheme, firms can expect to be paid an amount equivalent to 4—6 per cent of their incremental sales, in addition to the base-year level.
To ensure long-term competitiveness of these industries, protectionist measures must be employed with caution and only for a finite period of time, while complying with international trade regulations. Promoting installation and use of Li-ion batteries is an area where both market-based and non-market-based instruments are commonly employed.
In terms of market-based instruments, governments can improve overall economic returns to the installation of Li-ion batteries by introducing monetary rewards at different points. First, direct subsidy or preferential tax treatment can be given when Li-ion batteries are installed. For example, the German government and its development bank, KfW, provide low-interest loans and repayment bonuses for batteries in conjunction with photovoltaic systems Potau et al.
Levy and grid tariff exemptions are also given to grid-connected electricity storage facilities. For electric vehicles, countries introduced measures such as exemptions or rebates on road toll to accelerate their adoption. For example, it is often found that deregulated power markets and regulated utility operators do not pay battery energy storage—either by households or businesses—for its support to mitigating power fluctuations to the grids and maintaining their overall stability Stenclik et al.
In other words, regulatory authorities do not usually recognize the dual role that electricity storage system plays in the grid systems. The battery is a buyer of electricity from the grid when it is charging, but a seller when discharges. The seller contributes to congestion relief, renewable integration, and arbitrage, etc. Third, another approach to incentivize the installation of Li-ion batteries is to reduce the attractiveness of the alternatives.
For example, some European Union countries stopped the payment of preferential tariffs for feeding electricity from renewable energy sources into the grid, which makes using battery storage more appealing in comparison Potau et al. Non-market-based instruments that involve imposing obligations or introducing non-monetary incentives also play a role in supporting Li-ion battery installation.
In some areas such as electric vehicles, there has been a recent shift from market-based instruments such as direct subsidies to non-market-based instruments. Authorities in some countries have introduced zero-emission vehicle mandates and fuel economy standards. Others established low-emission zones, where only electric or hybrid cars are allowed.
For electric utilities, governments could require utility or grid operators to install a minimum capacity of battery storage. Such requirements can help to develop pilot projects and promote industry learning Stenclik et al.
Policymakers can also invest in improving public understanding of battery storage and its related benefits. This could help attract those that have shied away from decentralized solutions such as battery storage due to concerns over reliability, economic viability, safety, and data security, among others.
Another non-market-based instrument is to promote the installation of charging stations, as there is a strong correlation between the availability of charging infrastructure and electric vehicle uptake. Countries have been building charging infrastructure along road and fuel stations and introduced provisions in building codes to encourage charging facilities.
However, the expansion of the charging infrastructure remains a key challenge for the widespread adoption of electric vehicles. One of the obstacles to the installation of charging stations is the so-called land squeeze for personal electric vehicles. In many urban areas, there is a lack of ability to establish private charging at home and parking garages are rarely equipped with charging outlets.
Only 40 per cent of European and 30 per cent of Chinese electric vehicle owners have access to private parking with wall charging, versus 75 per cent of US electric vehicle owners. For the adoption of electric buses and trucks that need fast, high-capacity charging, the challenge is even greater, and it creates large pressure on improving the grid in local areas. An alternative approach to grid improvement could be the use of stationary energy storage using Li-ion batteries for key charging stations.
In most countries, the power facilities can accommodate a significant rise in the number of electric vehicles, if the vehicles are charged in off-peak periods. It will be important for all countries to consider the electrical grid capacity well in advance to identify any limitations before the adoption of electric vehicles increase further. The countries need to accumulate various experiences with storage installations—including how to price and manage the business operations of battery installations—before projects can be scaled-up.
It is important that countries establish pilot projects and knowledge exchanges that help operators and regulators better understand the technology, especially for smaller countries where there are fewer installation opportunities. The study encompasses a cradle-to-grave system without predefined cutoff limits. Materials and processes are only neglected when their contribution to the potential environmental burdens is considered negligible based on a combination of mass, energy demand, and expected burdens per mass or energy unit.
LCI data for the battery production and for the production and use of an electric vehicle are compiled specifically for this study see Figure 1 , while LCI data for the materials and processes in the background system are taken from the ecoinvent database version 2.
Calculations were done on different cathode materials containing nickel, cobalt or iron-phosphate in order to check the sensitivity of the results. Details on the production of the battery and its components are given in the paragraph below headed Description of Unit Processes. The vehicle we studied was comparable to a Volkswagen Golf in size and power, had a range of around km per charge battery weight, kg; battery capacity, 0.
In this case the BEV would require a battery replacement. Heating, cooling, and electronic devices consume 2. The average electricity production mix UCTE in Europe 11 was chosen for the operation of the BEVs in agreement with the criteria used in the rest of the study and in the ecoinvent database. The environmental burden for the operation of BEV depended mainly on the choice of electricity production.
This was tested by replacing the UCTE-mix with electricity from hard coal and hydropower. It is important to state that neither the vehicle nor the battery was meant to represent specific products but rather a technically sensible option.
A new efficient gasoline car Euro 5 standard 12 was chosen as a basis for comparison. This ICEV consumes 5. The car chosen was representative of neither the European fleet nor the fleet of new cars sold in Europe in Allocation of the inputs and output flows to the various products is a critical issue in LCA studies because the choice of allocation principles can predetermine the outcome of the LCA. Thus, it is very important that allocation procedures are in line with the goal of the study Since a present study aimed to determine the potential contribution of batteries to the overall burdens of mobility, allocation in the foreground system was chosen in such a way as to result in the highest possible environmental burdens for the battery.
Thus, all expenditures for the exploitation of the lithium salts were allocated to the lithium salts, even though the saline brine yields other byproduct as well. In line with this principle, end-of-life EOL products that are being recycled are not allocated any expenditure from their production.
Thus, all the burdens from material production are allocated to the first life of a product even though the product might even be reused e. Resource depletion is indicated as abiotic depletion potential ADP , one of the impact categories in the CML method 19, All impact assessment methods are used as implemented in the ecoinvent database version 2.
The first two indicators were chosen for their broad acceptance and relevance in decision making. ADP was evaluated to include the use of resources, especially metals. Apart from the impact assessment results, we also present cumulative particulate matter PM 10 , SO 2 , and NO x emissions, since these indicators are widely used in discussions on environmental issues of mobility.
Figure 1 depicts the production steps required for the Li-ion battery ranging from the extraction of lithium and the electrode production to the battery pack, the components of the electric vehicle, and the mobility with the electric vehicle. The dashed line refers to the functional unit chosen for this study. For all productions steps, the required thermal and electrical energy to produce a 1 kg Li-ion battery is quoted.
The mass used for the calculation are based on a Kokam battery 21 and the cathode material is assumed to be LiMn 2 O 4. High Resolution Image. The production of concentrated lithium brine includes inspissations of lithium containing brine by solar energy in the desert of Atacama.
Diesel fuel is required for pumping the brine 22 between different basins. The concentrated lithium brine is further treated with additives for the removal of boron, followed by a purification step.
Finally, the addition of soda for carbonation results in the precipitation of lithium carbonate Li 2 CO 3. Manganese oxide Mn 2 O 3 is produced by a two stage roasting process whereby manganese carbonate is roasted in an atmosphere low in oxygen content, followed by roasting in an atmosphere high in oxygen content During the different stages, the atmosphere in the rotary kiln changes from an inert addition of N 2 to an oxidizing addition of O 2 condition.
The powder is then suspended with water followed by spray drying evaporation of the water. Base materials for the electrolyte are an organic solvent, typically ethylene carbonate C 3 H 4 O 3 25 , and the electrolytic salt, typically lithium hexafluorophosphate LiPF 6 The filtrate is titrated with ammonia pH 7.
Thereafter, hydrogen fluoride is added in excess for complete chlorine-fluorine exchange in PCl 5 The reaction in the autoclave occurs in an inert nitrogen atmosphere. The production of the cathode and anode requires the mixture of a few components binder and solvent, black carbon, LiMn 2 O 4 and graphite respectively in a ball mill to a slurry 26, 30 , followed by coating the collector foil aluminum and copper respectively with the slurry.
The binder modified styrene butadiene copolymer 31 is water-soluble and has the advantage that no organic solvent is needed. For the production of the separator, a porous polyethylene film is coated with a slurry consisting of a copolymer, dibutyl phthalate and silica dissolved in acetone Cathode, separator, and anode are calendared, slit to size, winded, and packed to a single cell in a polyethylene envelope.
Finally, single cells, the battery management system and cables are assembled in a steel box. The glider chassis, car body parts, wheels, interiors, safety devices, acclimatization devices remained unaltered, but the drivetrain was replaced by an electric drivetrain composed of the electric power control, an electric motor and the transmission and by a Li-ion battery see Scheme S1 for Supporting Information.
The use of the car takes into account electricity consumption and all infrastructures needed vehicle, road and electricity network including EOL treatment. The data set for a new efficient gasoline passenger car with reduced fuel consumption Euro 5 standard based on the ecoinvent Database was used as a reference.
The Li-ion battery plays a minor role regarding the environmental burdens of E-mobility irrespective of the impact assessment method used. There are no differences between ICEV and BEV with respect to the environmental burden related to road use infrastructure, maintenance, and disposal and the glider. Small differences are related to the drivetrain, maintenance, and disposal of the car.
The main difference is reflected in the operation phase, which rises far above the impact of the battery. All these emissions result mainly from operation independently of the vehicle type. The production of the battery, the glider, and the drivetrain also emits considerable amounts of PM 10 , NO x , and SO 2. The production of the Li-ion battery is dominated by the production of the anode, the cathode and the battery pack Figure 3. Single cell, separator, lithium salt, and solvent play a minor role.
In addition to its cells, the battery pack contains a steel box, cables, and the printed wiring board. Copper used in other components e. Graphite and all other components of the anode only have a small impact. The anode has a much smaller share on the total impact of the battery. The collector of the cathode, made of aluminum foil, has a higher share of the environmental burdens than the active material throughout all impact assessment methods.
All other components binder, carbon black, energy use, etc. The printed wiring board, process heat, and nitrogen are other important contributors to the total impact of a Li-ion battery, besides the copper- and aluminum collector foils and the active materials graphite and LiMn 2 O 4. While the scenario with the active material containing nickel and cobalt results in an increase in environmental burden of Thus, using hydropower electricity as fuel for the BEV reduces the share of operation on total environmental burden of transport service substantially to 9.
The main finding of this study is that the impact of a Li-ion battery used in BEVs for transport service is relatively small. In contrast, it is the operation phase that remains the dominant contributor to the environmental burden caused by transport service as long as the electricity for the BEV is not produced by renewable hydropower. This finding is in good accordance with other studies showing that the impact of operation dominates in transport service 35, In these studies, infrastructure, maintenance, and service have minor shares of the environmental impact imposed by transport services.
We found the same pattern for the environmental burden of the different components to transport service Figure 2. Another explanation for the small impact of the battery on the overall assessment of transport service is the tiny share of the lithium components on the environmental burden for the Li-ion battery.
This finding can be explained first of all by the fact that the lithium content accounts for only 0. Thereby, the lithium content of the active material LiMn 2 O 4 and the lithium in the electrolyte is included. In addition, the processes used to extract lithium from brines are very simple and have a low energy demand. Although lithium occurs in average concentrations lower than 0. Li 2 CO 3 , the base material for the cathode active material and the lithium salt have an impact of only 1.
Compared to other components, for example, Mn 2 O 3 4. However, these results are valid only as long as Li 2 CO 3 is produced from brines.
If the lithium components were based on spodumene, a silicate of lithium and aluminum, the extraction of the lithium would require a considerable amount of process energy The major contributors to the environmental burden for the production of the battery, regardless of the impact assessment method used, are metal supply Figure 3 and process energy.
Metals appear above all in the production of the anode copper collector foil , the cathode aluminum collector foil , and the battery pack. The battery pack requires cables copper , steel for the box of the battery and a battery management system, which contains different metals, for example, copper, gold, tin.
A high energy demand occurs in the production of aluminum, the production of wafers for the battery management system, the production of graphite, the roasting processes of manganese carbonate to Mn 2 O 3 or Li 2 CO 3 and Mn 2 O 3 to LiMn 2 O 4 or the use of heat to dry the electrodes.
Hard coal coke is the base material which is transformed into graphite. The material itself contains a lot of energy and contributes to the CED, but not to the GWP as the carbon remains in the product and only a low level of CO 2 emissions are generated in the process.
Another remarkable contributor to the environmental impact of the Li-ion battery is LiMn 2 O 4 which reaches its highest values when assessed with GWP. The high score is explained with the energy input for the roasting process of Mn 2 O 3 and LiMn 2 O 4 and the concomitant high use of the resource. The LCA result of BEVmobility mainly depends on the environmental profile of the electricity mixes considered, as the vehicle tailpipe emissions are shifted to the power generation units A break even analysis shows that an ICEV would need to consume less than 3.
Consumptions in this range are achieved by some small and very efficient diesel ICEVs, for example, from Ford and Volkswagen 13, Transport service affects the environment largely by contributing to global air pollution. PM 10 , SO 2 , and NO x traffic emissions contribute significantly to environmental problems such as acidification and eutrophication SO 2 and NO x , photochemical air pollution NO x or have adverse effects on human health, for example, cell toxicity, damage to genetic material by means of oxidative stress or by triggering allergies PM 10 , SO 2 , and NO x.
However, the emissions caused by the production of the vehicle, in particular the Li-ion battery, are located in industrial areas where the population density is rather small. The releases of emissions from operation are prevalent in urban areas with a high population density. The NO x -emissions from an ICEV that originate prevalent from operation, consequently have a high damage potential to human health. This evidence explains the different pictures produced by EI99 and the other assessment methods.
Also the choice of allocation procedures and other modeling choices elicit variances that might affect the outcome of the study. The most critical points are therefore discussed in the following section. The chemistry chosen for the Li-ion batteries investigated in this study was based on manganese. Today, numerous other materials are serious contenders for automotive batteries, for example, nickel, cobalt, or iron.
The sensitivity analysis of different lithium-based cathode materials showed only small changes in the environmental burden. Hence, for a generic assessment it seems reasonable to neglect the diversity of many different active materials to reduce the complexity of battery chemistry. The sensitivity analysis on electricity consumption for the BEV or the sensitivity analysis for a modified lifespan showed rather small variances concerning environmental burdens for both, mobility with an ICEV or BEV.
However, the choice of the electricity generation led to considerable variations in the results. Propelling a BEV with electricity from an average hard coal power plant increases the environmental burden by On the other hand, using electricity from an average hydropower plant decreases environmental burden by This results in a decrease for the operation from The modeling applied to EOL treatment for the vehicles including the Li-ion battery resulted in a worst case scenario, as no benefits were derived from the potentially useful materials in the battery.
This reduction is expected to be even higher for electric vehicles since the exergy analysis by Dewulf et al. All the facts taken together, the results of the LCA, the various sensitivity analyses, the modeling applied for EOL, the assumption for the used electricity mix, etc.
The Li-ion battery plays a minor role in the assessment of the environmental burden of E-Mobility. Supporting Information. Author Information. Dominic A. Google Scholar There is no corresponding record for this reference.
If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content.
Fetching data from CrossRef. This may take some time to load. Loading related content. Jump to main content. Jump to site search. You do not have JavaScript enabled. Please enable JavaScript to access the full features of the site or access our non-JavaScript page. Issue 11, Shyam S. You have access to this article. Please wait while we load your content
0コメント