Understanding the future of lithium: Part 2, temporally and spatially resolved life‐cycle assessment modeling
Open accessAbstract
An array of emerging technologies, from electric vehicles to renewable energy systems, relies on large‐format lithium ion batteries (LIBs). LIBs are a critical enabler of clean energy technologies commonly associated with air pollution and greenhouse gas mitigation strategies. However, LIBs require lithium, and expanding the supply of lithium requires new lithium production capacity, which, in turn, changes the environmental impacts associated with lithium production since different resource types and ore qualities will be exploited. A question of interest is whether this will lead to significant changes in the environmental impacts of primary lithium over time. Part one of this two‐part article series describes the development of a novel resource production model that predicts future lithium demand and production characteristics (e.g., timing, location, and ore type). In this article, part two, the forecast is coupled with anticipatory life‐cycle assessment (LCA) modeling to estimate the environmental impacts of producing battery‐grade lithium carbonate equivalent (LCE) each year between 2018 and 2100. The result is a normalized life‐cycle impact intensity for LCE that reflects the changing resource type, quantity, and region of production. Sustained growth in lithium demands through 2100 necessitates extraction of lower grade resources and mineral deposits, especially after 2050. Despite the reliance on lower grade resources and differences in impact intensity for LCE production from each deposit, the LCA results show only small to modest increases in impact, for example, carbon intensity increases from 3.2 kg CO 2 e/kg LCE in 2020 to 3.3 kg CO 2 e/kg LCE in 2100.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
Ambrose and Kendall's global study lacks the granularity needed to accurately assess diverse processing technologies and discuss improvements from a life cycle perspective.
“Although Ambrose and Kendall28 present life cycle impacts of Li chemicals on a global scale, their study lacks the granularity needed to accurately assess the diverse processing technologies and to discuss improvements from a life cycle perspective.”
From Current and Future Impacts of Lithium Carbonate from Brines: A Global Regionalized Life Cycle Assessment Model (2025) · cites this paper as [28]
The Life-cycle inventory model (section 2.1.2; page not available) says processing varies among deposits and companies, while the Conclusions call for site-by-site assessment to capture variability. That supports a concern about granularity. But the paper does assess multiple production pathways (section 3.1) and discusses potential improvements in energy sources and efficiency (Discussion); it does not say its granularity prevents those assessments or discussions. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredLithium life cycle assessments may offer insights on projected energy consumption and carbon intensity impacts yet lack social and hydrogeographic context, such as degree of water stress on the implications of water use by life cycle stage.
“Lithium LCAs may offer insights on projected energy consumption and carbon intensity impacts yet lack social and hydrogeographic context, such as degree of water stress on the implications of water use by life cycle stage”
From Lithium and water: Hydrosocial impacts across the life cycle of energy storage (2024) · cites this paper as Ambrose & Kendall, 2020
The Methods and Results (§§2 and 3.1.1; page unavailable) model energy consumption and projected carbon impacts. The Conclusions (§5; page unavailable) call for site-specific assessment of socioeconomic impacts on communities, and the listed impact categories (§2.1.3) do not include water stress. The paper does not specifically discuss how local water stress changes the implications of water use at each life-cycle stage, so that example is not directly supported. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredExisting literature uses dated LCI data for LCE production.
“First, existing literature uses dated LCI data for LCE production.”
From Environmental impacts of lithium supply chains from Australia to China (2024) · cites this paper as Ambrose and Kendall 2020
The Discussion compares this study with existing LCE production inventories, supporting that prior literature uses LCI data for LCE production. Neither that section nor the Previous research section says those data are dated; the Discussion’s warning about temporally static inventories concerns this study’s own model. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThis study's GWP values (10.7-16.7 t CO2eq/t LCE) for per ton LCE production from spodumene are lower than findings from previous studies (14-35.1 t CO2eq/t LCE).
“Compared to findings from previous studies (14-35.1 t CO2eq/t LCE) (Khakmardan et al 2023, Ambrose and Kendall 2020, Kelly et al 2021, Haddad et al 2023), the results from this study indicated lower GWP values (10.7-16.7 t CO2eq/t LCE) for per ton LCE production from spodumene.”
From Environmental impacts of lithium supply chains from Australia to China (2024) · cites this paper as Ambrose and Kendall 2020
Section 3.1.1 reports GWP of 3.2–3.3 kg CO₂e/kg LCE as a production-weighted average across lithium sources, not a value for spodumene production. Sections 3.1 and 4 discuss hard-rock pathways and comparisons with other estimates, but the passages found do not give a spodumene GWP value in the cited 14–35.1 t CO₂eq/t LCE range (searched for that range and spodumene GWP). (LLM, conf=0.73)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Rapidly falling costs of battery packs for electric vehicles
Nykvist, B., & Nilsson, M. (2015) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate2564 · Cited by 1,819 · see citing works
Recovery and recycling of lithium: a review
Swain, B. (2017) · Separation and Purification Technology · doi:10.1016/j.seppur.2016.08.031 · Cited by 1,713 · see citing works
Toward sustainable and systematic recycling of spent rechargeable batteries
Zhang, X., Li, L., Fan, E., Xue, Q., Bian, Y., Wu, F., & Chen, R. (2018) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/c8cs00297e · Cited by 1,038 · see citing works
TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0
Bare, J. (2011) · Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy · doi:10.1007/s10098-010-0338-9 · Cited by 988 · see citing works
Examining different recycling processes for lithium-ion batteries
Ciez, R. E., & Whitacre, J. F. (2019) · Nature Sustainability · doi:10.1038/s41893-019-0222-5 · Cited by 965 · see citing works
Recycling of Spent Lithium-Ion Battery: A Critical Review
Zeng, X., Li, J., & Singh, N. P. (2013) · Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology · doi:10.1080/10643389.2013.763578 · Cited by 913 · see citing works
Grosjean, C., Miranda, P. H., Perrin, M., & Poggi, P. (2012) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.11.023 · Cited by 847 · see citing works
Contribution of Li-Ion Batteries to the Environmental Impact of Electric Vehicles
Notter, D. A., Gauch, M., Widmer, R., Wäger, P. A., Stamp, A., Zah, R., & Althaus, H. (2010) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es903729a · Cited by 842 · see citing works
Global Lithium Availability: A Constraint for Electric Vehicles?
Gruber, P. W., Medina, P. A., Keoleian, G. A., Kesler, S. E., Everson, M. P., & Wallington, T. J. (2011) · Journal of Industrial Ecology · doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00359.x · Cited by 620 · see citing works
Dunn, J. B., Gaines, L., Kelly, J. C., James, C., & Gallagher, K. G. (2015) · Energy & Environmental Science · doi:10.1039/c4ee03029j · Cited by 561 · see citing works
Recovery of lithium from Uyuni salar brine
An, J. W., Kang, D. J., Tran, K. T., Kim, M. J., Lim, T., & Tran, T. (2012) · Hydrometallurgy · doi:10.1016/j.hydromet.2012.02.008 · Cited by 509 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Throughput, efficiency, and material and energy inputs are estimated based on company reporting, patents, and prior studies (An et al., 2012; Garrett, 2004; Laferriere et al., 2012; Stamp et al., 2012).”
A closed loop process for recycling spent lithium ion batteries
Gratz, E. S., Sa, Q., Apelian, D., & Wang, Y. (2014) · Journal of Power Sources · doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.03.126 · Cited by 487 · see citing works
2023 Critical Materials Strategy
Bauer, D., USDOE, Khazdozian, H., Mehta, J., Nguyen, R. T., Severson, M. H., Vaagensmith, B. C., Toba, A.-L., Zhang, B., Hossain, T., et al. (2023) · doi:10.2172/1998242 · Cited by 485 · see citing works
Northey, S., Mohr, S. H., Mudd, G. M., Weng, Z., & Giurco, D. (2013) · Resources Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.10.005 · Cited by 438 · see citing works
Modeling and Simulation of Mineral Processing Systems
King, R. P. (2001) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/c2009-0-26303-3 · Cited by 427 · see citing works
A cascaded life cycle: Reuse of electric vehicle lithium-ion battery packs in energy storage systems
Ahmadi, L., Young, S. B., Fowler, M., Fraser, R. A., & Achachlouei, M. A. (2017) · The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment · doi:10.1007/s11367-015-0959-7 · Cited by 421 · see citing works
The future of lithium availability for electric vehicle batteries
Speirs, J. F., Contestabile, M., Houari, Y., & Gross, R. (2014) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2014.04.018 · Cited by 418 · see citing works
Lithium Resources and Production: Critical Assessment and Global Projections
Mohr, S. H., Mudd, G. M., & Giurco, D. (2012) · Minerals · doi:10.3390/min2010065 · Cited by 357 · see citing works
Lithium-ion battery recycling processes: Research towards a sustainable course
Gaines, L. L. (2018) · Sustainable materials and technologies · doi:10.1016/j.susmat.2018.e00068 · Cited by 344 · see citing works
Supply risks associated with lithium-ion battery materials
Helbig, C., Bradshaw, A. M., Wietschel, L., Thorenz, A., & Tuma, A. (2017) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.122 · Cited by 343 · see citing works
Technical Viability of Battery Second Life: A Study From the Ageing Perspective
Martinez-Laserna, E., Sarasketa-Zabala, E., Sarria, I. V., Stroe, D., Swierczynski, M. J., Warnecke, A., Timmermans, J.-M., Goutam, S., Omar, N., & Rodríguez, P. (2018) · IEEE Transactions on Industry Applications · doi:10.1109/tia.2018.2801262 · Cited by 236 · see citing works
Understanding the future of lithium: part 1, resource model
Ambrose, H., & Kendall, A. (2020) · Journal of Industrial Ecology · doi:10.1111/jiec.12949 · Cited by 213 · see citing works
Self-citationParrado, C., Girard, A., Simon, F., & Fuentealba, E. (2015) · Energy · doi:10.1016/j.energy.2015.11.015 · Cited by 196 · see citing works
Environmental trade-offs across cascading lithium-ion battery life cycles
Richa, K., Babbitt, C. W., Nenadic, N. G., & Gaustad, G. (2017) · The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment · doi:10.1007/s11367-015-0942-3 · Cited by 186 · see citing works
Durucan, Ş., Korre, A., & Meléndez, G. M. (2005) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2004.12.021 · Cited by 174 · see citing works
Li, B., Gao, X., Li, J., & Yuan, C. Y. (2014) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es4037786 · Cited by 170 · see citing works
Stamp, A., Lang, D. J., & Wäger, P. A. (2012) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.10.026 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
Kuipers, K., van Oers, L. F. C. M., Verboon, M., & van der Voet, E. (2018) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.02.008 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
Life cycle assessment: a time-series analysis of copper
Memary, R., Giurco, D., Mudd, G. M., & Mason, L. (2012) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.04.025 · Cited by 125 · see citing works
Some observations on copper yields and ore grades
Crowson, P. (2012) · Resources Policy · doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2011.12.004 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
The cost of lithium is unlikely to upend the price of Li-ion storage systems
Ciez, R. E., & Whitacre, J. F. (2016) · Journal of Power Sources · doi:10.1016/j.jpowsour.2016.04.073 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
(2004) · doi:10.1016/b978-012276152-2/50038-4 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Driving rural energy access: a second-life application for electric-vehicle batteries
Ambrose, H., Gershenson, D., Gershenson, A., & Kammen, D. M. (2014) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/9/094004 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Self-citationYu, J., Zheng, M., Wu, Q., Nie, Z., & Bu, L. (2015) · Solar Energy · doi:10.1016/j.solener.2015.02.021 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Ore Grade Decrease As Life Cycle Impact Indicator for Metal Scarcity: The Case of Copper
Vieira, M. D. M., Goedkoop, M. J., Storm, P., et al. (2012) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es302721t · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Resource demand for the production of different cathode materials for lithium ion batteries
Swart, P., Dewulf, J. P., & Biernaux, A. (2014) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.056 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Pehlken, A., Young, S. B., & Chen, M. (2016) · The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment · doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1219-1 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Abad, M., Fernández, R. L., & Izquierdo, T. (2017) · EGU General Assembly Conference Abstracts · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Garrett, D. E. (2004). Handbook of lithium and natural calcium chloride. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier.
- Kawatra, S. K., & Eisele, T. C. (2002). Froth flotation-fundamental principles, pp. 1-30. Houghton, MI: Michigan Technical University.
- Lahsen, A., Muñoz, N., & Parada, M. A. (2010). Geothermal development in Chile (Vol. 25, p. 7). In Proceedings World Geothermal Congress, Bali, Indonesia.
- Menéndez, M., Vidal, J., Toraño, J., & Gent, M. (2004). Optimisation of spodumene flotation. European Journal of Mineral Processing & Environmental Protection, 4(2): 130-135.
- Pehlken, A., Albach, S., & Vogt, T. (2015). Is there a resource constraint related to lithium ion batteries in cars? The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 22, 1-14.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Environmental impact of direct lithium extraction from brines
Vera, M. L., Torres, W. R., Galli, C. I., Chagnes, A., & Flexer, V. (2023) · Nature Reviews Earth & Environment · doi:10.1038/s43017-022-00387-5 · Cited by 766 · see citing works
Kelly, J. C., Wang, M., Dai, Q., & Winjobi, O. (2021) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105762 · Cited by 288 · see citing works
Towards sustainable extraction of technology materials through integrated approaches
Pell, R., Tijsseling, L., Goodenough, K., Wall, F., Dehaine, Q., Grant, A., Deak, D., Yan, X., & Whattoff, P. (2021) · Nature Reviews Earth & Environment · doi:10.1038/s43017-021-00211-6 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Regionalized life cycle assessment of present and future lithium production for Li-ion batteries
Schenker, V., Oberschelp, C., & Pfister, S. (2022) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106611 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
Chordia, M., Wickerts, S., Nordelöf, A., & Arvidsson, R. (2022) · Resources, Conservation and Recycling · doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106634 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
Reich, R., Slunitschek, K., Danisi, R. M., Eiche, E., & Kolb, J. (2023) · Mineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy Review · doi:10.1080/08827508.2022.2047041 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
Khakmardan, S., Rolinck, M., Cerdas, F., Herrmann, C., Giurco, D., Crawford, R., & Li, W. (2023) · Procedia CIRP · doi:10.1016/j.procir.2023.02.102 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Life cycle modelling of extraction and processing of battery minerals—a parametric approach
Manjong, N. B., Usai, L., Burheim, O. S., & Strømman, A. H. (2021) · Batteries · doi:10.3390/batteries7030057 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Decarbonizing lithium-ion battery primary raw materials supply chain
Istrate, R., Mas-Fons, A., Beylot, A., Northey, S., Vaidya, K., Sonnemann, G., Kleijn, R., & Steubing, B. (2024) · Joule · doi:10.1016/j.joule.2024.10.003 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Lithium and water: Hydrosocial impacts across the life cycle of energy storage
Blair, J. J. A., Vineyard, N., Mulvaney, D., Cantor, A., Sharbat, A., Berry, K., Bartholomew, E., & Ornelas, A. F. (2024) · WIREs Water · doi:10.1002/wat2.1748 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Schenker, V., & Pfister, S. (2025) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.4c12619 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Sun, X., Giljum, S., Maus, V., Schomberg, A., Zhang, S., & You, F. (2025) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.4c12749 · Cited by 27 · see citing works
Environmental impacts of lithium supply chains from Australia to China
Feng, Y., Wang, P., Li, W., Zhang, Q., Chen, W.-Q., & Feng, D. (2024) · Environmental Research Letters · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ad69ac · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Feng, Y., Feng, D., Sun, X., Liu, Z., Li, W., & Wang, P. (2025) · ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering · doi:10.1021/acssuschemeng.5c03739 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
- Authors
- Ambrose, H., & Kendall, A.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Davis (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kendall, Alissa
- Venue
- Journal of Industrial Ecology
- Published
- 2019-10-07
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 90-100
- ISSN
- 1088-1980 (ISSN-L)
- 1530-9290
- OpenAlex
- W2977717779
- Cited by
- 111
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 5
- FWCI
- 4.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Industrial Ecology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (CBET‐1337095)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental Impact and Sustainability
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Extraction and Separation Processes
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Photovoltaic Systems and Sustainability
- Keywords
- lithium, lithium-ion batteries, lithium production, ore grade, carbon intensity, mining impacts, electric vehicles, renewable energy storage
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
