Life Cycle Prediction Assessment of Battery Electrical Vehicles with Special Focus on Different Lithium-Ion Power Batteries in China

Yang Yang, Libo Lan, Zhuo Hao, Jianyou Zhao, Geng Luo, Pei Fu and Yisong Chen
Additional contact information
Yang Yang: College of Transportation Engineering, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China
Libo Lan: School of Automobile, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China
Zhuo Hao: School of Automobile, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China
Jianyou Zhao: School of Automobile, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China
Geng Luo: School of Automobile, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China
Pei Fu: School of Automobile, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China
Yisong Chen: School of Automobile, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China

Energies, 2022, vol. 15, issue 15, 1-23

Abstract: The incentive policies of new energy vehicles substantially promoted the development of the electrical vehicles technology and industry in China. However, the environmental impact of the key technology parameters progress on the battery electrical vehicles (BEV) is uncertain, and the BEV matching different lithium-ion power batteries shows different environmental burdens. This study conducts a life cycle assessment (LCA) of a BEV matching four different power batteries of lithium-ion phosphate (LFP), lithium-ion nickel-cobalt-manganese (NCM), lithium manganese oxide (LMO), and lithium titanate oxide (LTO) batteries. In addition, the 2025 and 2030 prediction analyses of the batteries production and life cycle BEV are conducted with the specially considered change and progress of the power battery energy density, battery manufacturing energy consumption, electricity structure, battery charge efficiency, and vehicle lightweight level. In addition, sensitivity analyses of power battery energy density, battery manufacturing energy consumption, electricity structure, and battery charge efficiency are conducted. The results show that the LFP battery is more environmentally friendly in the global warming potential (GWP) and acidification potential (AP), and the NCM battery is more environmentally friendly in abiotic depletion (fossil) (ADP(f)) and human toxicity potential (HTP). However, the LTO battery shows the highest environmental impact among the four environmental impact categories due to the lower energy density. For life cycle BEV, GWP and ADP(f) of BEV based on LFP, NCM, and LMO are lower than those of internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEV), while AP and HTP of BEV based on the four batteries are higher than those of ICEV. The grave-to-cradle (GTC) phase of vehicle has substantial environmental benefit to reduce the human toxicity emission. With the improvement of the battery density, battery charge efficiency, electricity structure, and glider lightweight level, life cycle BEVs based on the four different batteries show substantial environmental benefits for four environmental impact categories.

Keywords: battery electrical vehicle (BEV); lithium-ion power battery; life cycle assessment; prediction analysis; global warming potential (GWP); sensitivity analysis (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/15/5321/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/15/5321/ (text/html)

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:gam:jeners:v:15:y:2022:i:15:p:5321-:d:869065

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().