Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 250

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Eco‐Efficiency Analysis of a Lithium‐Ion Battery Waste Hierarchy Inspired by Circular Economy

Richa, Kirti, Babbitt, Callie W., Gaustad, Gabrielle·2017·Journal of Industrial Ecology

Abstract

Summary: A circular economy (CE)‐inspired waste management hierarchy was proposed for end‐of‐life (EOL) lithium‐ion batteries (LIBs) from electric vehicles (EVs). Life cycle eco‐efficiency metrics were then applied to evaluate potential environmental and economic trade‐offs that may result from managing 1,000 end‐of‐life EV battery packs in the United States according to this CE hierarchy. Results indicate that if technology and markets support reuse of LIBs in used EVs, the net benefit would be 200,000 megajoules of recouped cumulative energy demand, which is equivalent to avoiding the production of 11 new EV battery packs (18 kilowatt‐hours each). However, these benefits are magnified almost tenfold when retired EV LIBs are cascaded in a second use for stationary energy storage, thereby replacing the need to produce and use less‐efficient lead‐acid batteries. Reuse and cascaded use can also provide EV owners and the utility sector with cost savings, although the magnitude of future economic benefits is uncertain, given that future prices of battery systems are still unknown. In spite of these benefits, waste policies do not currently emphasize CE strategies like reuse and cascaded use for batteries. Though loop‐closing LIB recycling provides valuable metal recovery, it can prove nonprofitable if high recycling costs persist. Although much attention has been placed on landfill disposal bans for batteries, results actually indicate that direct and cascaded reuse, followed by recycling, can together reduce eco‐toxicity burdens to a much greater degree than landfill bans alone. Findings underscore the importance of life cycle and eco‐efficiency analysis to understand at what point in a CE hierarchy the greatest environmental benefits are accrued and identify policies and mechanisms to increase feasibility of the proposed system.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jiec.12607

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 250

Metadata

Authors
Richa, K., Babbitt, C. W., & Gaustad, G.
Venue
Journal of Industrial Ecology
Published
2017-05-15
Volume
21
Issue
3
Pages
715-730
ISSN
  • 1088-1980 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-9290
OpenAlex
W2615265737
Cited by
250
References
7
FWCI
10.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Eco‐Efficiency Analysis of a Lithium‐Ion Battery Waste Hierarchy Inspired by Circular Economy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/jiec.12607
The paper
Richa, K., Babbitt, C. W., & Gaustad, G. (2017). Eco‐Efficiency Analysis of a Lithium‐Ion Battery Waste Hierarchy Inspired by Circular Economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12607

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.