EconPapers    
Economics at your fingertips  
 

Study on the Life Cycle Assessment of Automotive Power Batteries Considering Multi-Cycle Utilization

Yongtao Liu, Chunmei Zhang, Zhuo Hao, Xu Cai, Chuanpan Liu, Jianzhang Zhang, Shu Wang and Yisong Chen ()
Additional contact information
Yongtao Liu: School of Automobile, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China
Chunmei Zhang: School of Automobile, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China
Zhuo Hao: CATARC New Energy Vehicle Test Center (Tianjin) Co., Ltd., Tianjin 300000, China
Xu Cai: School of Automobile, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China
Chuanpan Liu: School of Automobile, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China
Jianzhang Zhang: School of Automobile, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China
Shu Wang: School of Automobile, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China
Yisong Chen: School of Automobile, Chang’an University, Xi’an 710064, China

Energies, 2023, vol. 16, issue 19, 1-24

Abstract: This article utilizes the research method of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to scrutinize Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP) batteries and Ternary Lithium (NCM) batteries. It develops life cycle models representing the material, energy, and emission flows for power batteries, exploring the environmental impact and energy efficiency throughout the life cycles of these batteries. The life cycle assessment results of different power battery recycling process scenarios are compared and analyzed. This study focuses on retired LFP batteries to assess the environmental and energy efficiency during the cascade utilization stage, based on a 50% Single-Cell Conversion Rate (CCR). The findings of the research reveal that, in terms of resource depletion and environmental emission potential, LFP batteries exhibit lower impacts compared to NCM batteries. The use of hydrometallurgy in recovering LFP power batteries leads to minimal life cycle resource consumption and environmental emission potential. During the cascade utilization stage of LFP batteries, significant benefits are noted, including a 76% reduction in mineral resource depletion (ADP e) and an 83% reduction in fossil energy depletion (ADP f), alongside notable reductions in various environmental impact factors. Simultaneously, considering the sensitivity of life cycle assessment indicators and their benefit percentages to different CCRs, it is observed that ODP exhibits the highest sensitivity to CCR changes, while evaluation indicators such as HTP, AP, and GWP show relatively lower sensitivity. This study can provide an effective reference for the establishment of an energy saving and emission reduction evaluation system of power batteries.

Keywords: power batteries; life cycle assessment; multi-cycle utilization; recycling processes (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: 2023
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/19/6859/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/19/6859/ (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:16:y:2023:i:19:p:6859-:d:1249749

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 ().

 
Page updated 2025-03-19
Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:16:y:2023:i:19:p:6859-:d:1249749