Abstract
Purpose
Battery electric vehicles (BEVs) have been widely publicized. Their driving performances depend mainly on lithium-ion batteries (LIBs). Research on this topic has been concerned with the battery pack’s integrative environmental burden based on battery components, functional unit settings during the production phase, and different electricity grids during the use phase. We adopt a synthetic index to evaluate the sustainability of battery packs.
Methods
A life cycle assessment (LCA) is used to reveal the aspects of global warming potential (GWP), water consumption, and ecological impact during the two phases. An integrative indicator, the footprint-friendly negative index (FFNI), is combined with footprint family indicators of battery packs and electricity sources. We investigate two cases of 1 kg battery production and 1 kWh battery production to assess nickel–cobalt–manganese (NMC) and lithium–iron phosphate (LFP) battery packs and compare their degrees of environmental friendliness. Then, we break down the battery pack to identify the key factors influencing the environmental burden and use sensitivity analysis to analyze the causes. Moreover, we evaluate the environmental impact of battery packs during the use phase among different regions.
Results and discussion
Regardless of the functional unit (FU), the weights of the carbon footprint (CF), water footprint (WF), and ecological footprint (EF) are approximately the same. The results of the integrative environmental indicator, the FFNI, illustrate that the LFP is approximately 0.014, which is lower than that of the NMC battery pack in the mass production case. When using energy units as the FU, the FFNI of the NMC is 0.015, which reflects a lower environmental burden than that of other battery packs. In the use phase, 1kWh electricity consumption in China and Europe has the highest and lowest FFNI, respectively. When breaking down the battery-pack components, the simplified model advocates the cathode as the major contributor that determines the total environmental performance. In the following sensitivity analysis, the battery management system (BMS) is found to be the most intensive part of the footprint of most battery packs.
Conclusion
FU can influence the evaluation results. Developing proper renewable energy sources can reduce the footprints of battery packs during the use phase. The positive electrode pastes in the battery cell, BMS, and packaging in the battery pack can influence the environmental burden. Adopting green materials in sections like the BMS may be a specific measure to enhance the environmental friendliness of a battery pack during the production phase.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- BEVs:
-
Battery-powered electric vehicles
- CF:
-
Carbon footprint
- EF:
-
Ecological footprint
- EV:
-
Electric vehicles
- FFNI:
-
Footprint-friendly negative index
- GHG:
-
Greenhouse gas
- GREET:
-
Greenhouse gases, regulated emissions, and energy use in transportation
- ICEV:
-
Internal combustion electric vehicles
- LFP:
-
Lithium–iron phosphate (LiFePO4) graphite battery
- NMC111:
-
Lithium–nickel cobalt manganese oxide (LiNi0.3Co0.3Mn0.3O2) graphite battery
- NMC442:
-
Lithium–nickel cobalt manganese oxide (LiNi0. 4Mn0.4Co0.2O2) graphite battery
- WF:
-
Water footprint
- BMS:
-
Battery management system
- CN:
-
China
- EU:
-
Europe
- ETFE:
-
Tetrafluoroethylene
- FU:
-
Functional unit
- GWP:
-
Global warming potential
- HEV:
-
Hybrid electrical vehicles
- IBIS:
-
Integrated battery interface system
- LIBs:
-
Lithium-ion batteries
- NMC:
-
Nickel–cobalt–manganese oxide graphite battery
- PTFE:
-
Polytetrafluoroethylene
References
Aifantis KE, Hackney SA, Kumar RV (2010) High energy density lithium batteries: materials, engineering, applications. Wiley-VCH, Hoboken
Almeida A, Sousa N, Coutinho-Rodrigues J (2019) Quest for sustainability: life-cycle emissions assessment of electric vehicles considering newer Li-ion batteries. Sustainability. 11:2366. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082366
Boulay A-M, Bare J, Benini L, Berger M, Lathuillière MJ, Manzardo A, Margni M, Motoshita M, Núñez M, Pastor AV (2018) The WULCA consensus characterization model for water scarcity footprints: assessing impacts of water consumption based on available water remaining (AWARE). Int J Life Cycle Assess 23:368–378
Cooper JS (2003) Specifying functional units and reference flows for comparable alternatives. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:337–349. https://doi.org/10.1065/Ica2003.09.134
Cusenza MA, Bobba S, Ardente F, Cellura M, Persio FD (2019) Energy and environmental assessment of a traction lithium-ion battery pack for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. J Clean Prod 215:634–649
Deng Y, Li J, Li T, Gao X, Yuan C (2017a) Life cycle assessment of lithium sulfur battery for electric vehicles. J Power Sources 343:284–295
Deng Y, Li J, Li T, Zhang J, Yang F, Yuan C (2017b) Life cycle assessment of high capacity molybdenum disulfide lithium ion battery for electric vehicles. Energy. 123:77–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.01.096
Dunn JB, Gaines L, Barnes M, Wang M, Sullivan J, 2012. Material and energy flows in the materials production, assembly, and end-of-life stages of the automotive lithium-ion battery life cycle. Report, June 21, 2012; United States. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc844094/. Accessed July 9, 2020), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT libraries government documents department
Ellingsen LAW, Majeau-Bettez G, Singh B, Srivastava AK, Valoen LO, Stromman AH (2014) Life cycle assessment of a Lithium-ion battery vehicle pack. J Ind Ecol 18:113–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12072
Fang K, Heijungs R, de Snoo GR (2014) Theoretical exploration for the combination of the ecological, energy, carbon, and water footprints: overview of a footprint family. Ecol Indic 36:508–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.08.017
Fischer M, Werber M, Schwartz PV (2009) Batteries: higher energy density than gasoline? Energy Policy 37:2639–2641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.02.030
Frischknecht, R., Jungbluth, N., Althaus, H., Bauer, C., Doka, G., Dones, R., Hischier, R., Hellweg, S., Humbert, S., Köllner, T., 2007. Implementation of life cycle impact assessment methods - ecoinvent report no. 3 - data v2.2
Galli A, Wiedmann T, Ercin E, Knoblauch D, Ewing B, Giljum S (2012) Integrating ecological, carbon and water footprint into a “footprint family” of indicators: definition and role in tracking human pressure on the planet. Ecol Indic 16:100–112
Gavrilescu M, Simion IM, Ghinea C, Maxineasa SG, Taranu N, Bonoli A (2013) Ecological footprint applied in the assessment of construction and demolition waste integrated management. Environ. Eng Manag J 12:779–788. https://doi.org/10.30638/eemj.2013.097
Gong Y, Yu Y, Huang K, Hu J, Li C (2018) Evaluation of lithium-ion batteries through the simultaneous consideration of environmental, economic and electrochemical performance indicators. J Clean Prod 170:915–923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.189
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00532.x
Hu J, Huang K, Ridoutt BG, Yu Y, Wei J (2018) Rethinking environmental stress from the perspective of an integrated environmental footprint: application in the Beijing industry sector. Sci Total Environ 637–638:1051–1060
Li M, Lu J, Chen Z, Amine K (2018) 30 years of lithium-ion batteries. Adv Mater 30:1800561
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. https://doi.org/10.1021/es103607c
Matheys J, Van Autenboer W, Timmermans J-M, Van Mierlo J, Van den Bossche P, Maggetto G (2007) Influence of functional unit on the life cycle assessment of traction batteries. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:191–196. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2007.04.322
Notter DA, Gauch M, Widmer R, Wäger P, Stamp A, Zah R, Althaus HJ (2010) Contribution of Li-ion batteries to the environmental impact of electric vehicles. Environ Sci Technol 44:6550–6556
Peters JF, Baumann M, Zimmermann B, Braun J, Weil M (2017) The environmental impact of Li-ion batteries and the role of key parameters – a review. Renew Sust Energ Rev 67:491–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.08.039
Rahman MA, Wang X, Wen C (2014) A review of high energy density lithium–air battery technology. J Appl Electrochem 44:5–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10800-013-0620-8
Ridoutt BG, Pfister S (2013) Towards an integrated family of footprint indicators. J Ind Ecol 17:337–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12026
Sala S, Goralczyk M (2013) Chemical footprint: a methodological framework for bridging life cycle assessment and planetary boundaries for chemical pollution. Integr Environ Assess Manag 9:623–632
Simon B, Ziemann S, Weil M (2015) Potential metal requirement of active materials in lithium-ion battery cells of electric vehicles and its impact on reserves: focus on Europe. Resour Conserv Recycl 104:300–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.07.011
Sullivan JL, Gaines L (2012) Status of life cycle inventories for batteries. Energy Convers Manag 58:134–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2012.01.001
Wiedmann TO, Schandl H, Lenzen M, Moran D, Suh S, West J, Kanemoto K (2015) The material footprint of nations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112:6271–6276
Wu H, Gong Y, Yu Y, Huang K, Wang L (2019) Superior “green” electrode materials for secondary batteries: through the footprint family indicators to analyze their environmental friendliness. Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:36538–36557
Wu H, Yu Y, Li S, Huang K (2018) An empirical study of the assessment of green development in Beijing, China: considering resource depletion, environmental damage and ecological benefits simultaneously. Sustainability-Basel 10:719. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10030719
Yang F, Xie Y, Deng Y, Yuan C (2018) Predictive modeling of battery degradation and greenhouse gas emissions from U.S. state-level electric vehicle operation. Nat Commun 9:2429. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04826-0
Yu A, Wei Y, Chen W, Peng N, Peng L (2018) Life cycle environmental impacts and carbon emissions: a case study of electric and gasoline vehicles in China. Transp Res Part D: Transp Environ 65:409–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2018.09.009
Yu Y, Wang X, Wang D, Huang K, Wang L, Bao L, Wu F (2012) Environmental characteristics comparison of Li-ion batteries and Ni-MH batteries under the uncertainty of cycle performance. J Hazard Mater 229–230:455–460
Yuan X, Li L, Gou H, Dong T (2015) Energy and environmental impact of battery electric vehicle range in China. Appl Energy 157:75–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.001
Zhang X, Liang Y, Yu E, Rao R, Xie J (2017a) Review of electric vehicle policies in China: content summary and effect analysis. Renew Sust Energ Rev 70:698–714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.250
Zhang Y, Huang K, Yu Y, Yang B (2017b) Mapping of water footprint research: a bibliometric analysis during 2006–2015. J Clean Prod 149:70–79
Zhili D, Boqiang L, Chunxu G (2019) Development path of electric vehicles in China under environmental and energy security constraints. Resour Conserv Recycl 143:17–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.12.007
Zhou G, Ou X, Zhang X (2013) Development of electric vehicles use in China: a study from the perspective of life-cycle energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Energy Policy 59:875–884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.04.057
Funding
The authors would like to express appreciation to the following contributors: (1) the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 52074037) and (2) the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 52070017).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Haohui Wu: methodology, software, writing (original draft), investigation, and conceptualization. Yuchen Hu: writing (review and editing). Yajuan Yu and Kai Huang: conceptualization, investigation, funding acquisition, supervision, and project administration. Lei Wang: proofreading.
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by: Wulf-Peter Schmidt
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(XLSX 28 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wu, H., Hu, Y., Yu, Y. et al. The environmental footprint of electric vehicle battery packs during the production and use phases with different functional units. Int J Life Cycle Assess 26, 97–113 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01836-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01836-3