Reuse of Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiFePO 4 ) Batteries from a Life Cycle Assessment Perspective: The Second-Life Case Study

Giuliana Vinci, Vittorio Carobene Arangia, Roberto Ruggieri, Marco Savastano and Marco Ruggeri ()
Additional contact information
Giuliana Vinci: Department of Management, Sapienza University of Rome, Via del Castro Laurenziano 9, 00161 Rome, Italy
Vittorio Carobene Arangia: AzzeroCO2, Via Genova 23, 00184 Rome, Italy
Roberto Ruggieri: Department of Management, Sapienza University of Rome, Via del Castro Laurenziano 9, 00161 Rome, Italy
Marco Savastano: Department of Management, Sapienza University of Rome, Via del Castro Laurenziano 9, 00161 Rome, Italy
Marco Ruggeri: Department of Management, Sapienza University of Rome, Via del Castro Laurenziano 9, 00161 Rome, Italy

Energies, 2024, vol. 17, issue 11, 1-19

Abstract: As of 2035, the European Union has ratified the obligation to register only zero-emission cars, including ultra-low-emission vehicles (ULEVs). In this context, electric mobility fits in, which, however, presents the critical issue of the over-exploitation of critical raw materials (CRMs). An interesting solution to reduce this burden could be the so-called second life, in which batteries that are no longer able to guarantee high performance in vehicles are used for other applications that do not require high performance, such as so-called stationary systems, effectively avoiding new over-exploitation of resources. In this study, therefore, the environmental impacts of second-life lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO 4 ) batteries are verified using a life cycle perspective, taking a second life project as a case study. The results show how, through the second life, GWP could be reduced by −5.06 × 10 1 kg CO 2 eq/kWh, TEC by −3.79 × 10 0 kg 1.4 DCB eq/kWh, HNCT by −3.46 × 10 0 kg 1.4 DCB eq/kWh, −3.88 × 10 0 m 2 a crop eq/kWh, and −1.12 × 10 1 kg oil eq/kWh. It is further shown how second life is potentially preferable to other forms of recycling, such as hydrometallurgical and pyrometallurgical recycling, as it shows lower environmental impacts in all impact categories, with environmental benefits of, for example, −1.19 × 10 1 kg CO 2 eq/kWh (compared to hydrometallurgical recycling) and −1.50 × 10 1 kg CO 2 eq/kWh (pyrometallurgical recycling), −3.33 × 10 2 kg 1.4 DCB eq/kWh (hydrometallurgical), and −3.26 × 10 2 kg 1.4 DCB eq/kWh (pyrometallurgical), or −3.71 × 10 0 kg oil eq/kWh (hydrometallurgical) and −4.56 × 10 0 kg oil eq/kWh (pyrometallurgical). By extending the service life of spent batteries, it may therefore be possible to extract additional value while minimizing emissions and the over-exploitation of resources.

Keywords: life cycle assessment; LiFePO 4; second life; stationary plant; energy storage (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: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/11/2544/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/11/2544/ (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:17:y:2024:i:11:p:2544-:d:1401281

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 ().