CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 247Extraction and Separation ProcessesEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityPhotovoltaic Systems and Sustainability

Costs, carbon footprint, and environmental impacts of lithium-ion batteries—From cathode active material synthesis to cell manufacturing and recycling

Open access
Gutsch, Moritz, Leker, Jens·2024·Applied Energy
DOI 10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.122132
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Strong growth in lithium-ion battery (LIB) demand requires a robust understanding of both costs and environmental impacts across the value-chain. Recent announcements of LIB manufacturers to venture into cathode active material (CAM) synthesis and recycling expands the process segments under their influence. However, little research has yet provided combined costs and environmental impact assessments across several segments of the LIB value-chain. To address this gap, we provide a combined cost assessment and life cycle assessment (LCA), covering CAM synthesis, cell manufacturing and hydrometallurgy recycling. 1 kWh cell capacity (NMC811-C) is chosen as functional unit. Results for cell manufacturing in the United States show total cell costs of $94.5 kWh−1, a global warming potential (GWP) of 64.5 kgCO2eq kWh−1, and combined environmental impacts (normalizing and weighing 16 impact categories) of 4.0 × 10−12 kWh−1. Material use contributes 69% to costs and 93% to combined environmental impacts. Energy demand, meanwhile, accounts for 35% of GWP. Initially, hydrometallurgy recycling adds 5 to 10% to total costs, GWP, and environmental impacts. Including recycling credits, as recycled material substitutes new virgin material, shows benefits for recycling. Combined environmental impacts benefit most from recycling (−75%), followed by costs (−44%) and GWP (−37%). Further, we present a comprehensive dashboard which reveals how different scenarios, such as, using wind power instead of grid electricity, influence costs, GWP, and environmental impacts across process segments. Switching to low-carbon energy, for example, reduces GWP more than recycling would. Also, our dashboard shows that recycling or low scrap are more suitable options if reduction of costs or combined environmental impacts is the objective.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.122132

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • About 25% of EV production emissions come from mining to cathode production, 40% from cell production, and 35% from pack production.

    “Multiple sources report a range of values for the carbon intensity of EV production [99,105-109]. However, they mostly have the same magnitude and coalesce around 140 kg CO2/kWh, with about 25% of emissions coming from mining to cathode production, 40% from cell production, and the remaining 35% from pack production.”

    From Lithium Supply Chain Optimization: A Global Analysis of Critical Minerals for Batteries (2024) · cites this paper as [99]

  • The carbon intensity of EV production coalesces around 140 kg CO2/kWh.

    “Multiple sources report a range of values for the carbon intensity of EV production [99,105-109]. However, they mostly have the same magnitude and coalesce around 140 kg CO2/kWh, with about 25% of emissions coming from mining to cathode production, 40% from cell production, and the remaining 35% from pack production.”

    From Lithium Supply Chain Optimization: A Global Analysis of Critical Minerals for Batteries (2024) · cites this paper as [99]

  • Cathode active material synthesis accounts for more than 50% of production costs, carbon footprint and environmental impacts.

    “A recent study reported that cathode active material synthesis accounts for more than 50% of production costs, CF and environmental impacts (Gutsch and Leker, 2024).”

    From Think global act local: The dependency of global lithium-ion battery emissions on production location and material sources (2024) · cites this paper as Gutsch and Leker, 2024

  • The production of battery materials and subsequent LIB cell manufacturing contribute considerably to greenhouse gas emissions.

    “the production of battery materials4–7 and the subsequent LIB cell manufacturing8–10 contribute considerably to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions”

    From Carbon footprint distributions of lithium-ion batteries and their materials (2024) · cites this paper as [9]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gutsch, M., & Leker, J.
Affiliations
Forschungszentrum Jülich (DE)
Corresponding author
Gutsch, Moritz
ORCID
Venue
Applied Energy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2024-01
Volume
353
Pages
122132
ISSN
0306-2619 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.122132
OpenAlex
W4387930552
Cited by
247
References
76
Citations by year
2026: 105 · 2025: 106 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 1
FWCI
24.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Applied Energy (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Extraction and Separation Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Photovoltaic Systems and Sustainability
Keywords
lithium-ion batteries, cathode active materials, NMC811, battery cell manufacturing, battery value chain, cost evaluation, carbon footprint, global warming potential, environmental impact, low-carbon energy, wind energy, material utilization, scrap reduction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review