Comparative analysis of environmental and economic assessment of batteries for stationary applications

Tao Xuan, Xusheng Cheng and Liwei Wang

Energy, 2025, vol. 334, issue C

Abstract: Electrochemical batteries are acknowledged as a critical technology to counterbalance the intermittence and mitigate the fluctuation of renewable energy resources, especially redox flow batteries, therefore causing additional environmental and economic burdens. This study provides a comparative lifecycle assessment (LCA) enabling a benchmark comparison of battery technologies for different scenarios by lifecycle greenhouses gas (GHG) emissions (LCE) and costs (LCC), respectively. The results demonstrate that lithium-ion and eutectic-based RFB technologies offer a feasible alternative for stationary applications, benefiting from robust electrochemical performance and excellent environmental and economic competitiveness. Moreover, LCE is significantly influenced by technology, while LCC varies with application and technology. Limited by the social costs of carbon (SCC), the motivation for low LCE is not yet comparable to low LCC, which can be addressed by raising the mean SCC value more than three times. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis shows that the LCE and LCC are mostly affected by the electricity factor, roundtrip efficiency, lifetime, rated power and battery capital cost. This research provides key indicators for the evaluation and helps policymakers and markets to select suitable battery technologies according to the stationary applications.

Keywords: Electrochemical batteries; Lifecycle costs; Lifecycle GHG emissions; Carbon pricing; Grid decarbonization (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544225033900
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:energy:v:334:y:2025:i:c:s0360544225033900

DOI: 10.1016/j.energy.2025.137748

Access Statistics for this article

Energy is currently edited by Henrik Lund and Mark J. Kaiser

More articles in Energy from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().