†NEXT ENERGY - EWE Research Centre for Energy Technology at the University of Oldenburg, Carl-von-Ossietzky-Strasse 15, 26129 Oldenburg, Germany.
‡FluxGen Engineering Technologies Pvt. Ltd., #1064, BTM Layout, 560076 Bengaluru, India.
Environ Sci Technol. 2015 Apr 21;49(8):4825-33. doi: 10.1021/es504572q. Epub 2015 Apr 3.
This paper presents a comparative life cycle assessment of cumulative energy demand (CED) and global warming potential (GWP) of four stationary battery technologies: lithium-ion, lead-acid, sodium-sulfur, and vanadium-redox-flow. The analyses were carried out for a complete utilization of their cycle life and for six different stationary applications. Due to its lower CED and GWP impacts, a qualitative analysis of lithium-ion was carried out to assess the impacts of its process chains on 17 midpoint impact categories using ReCiPe-2008 methodology. It was found that in general the use stage of batteries dominates their life cycle impacts significantly. It is therefore misleading to compare the environmental performance of batteries only on a mass or capacity basis at the manufacturing outlet ("cradle-to-gate analyses") while neglecting their use stage impacts, especially when they have different characteristic parameters. Furthermore, the relative ranking of batteries does not show a significant dependency on the investigated stationary application scenarios in most cases. Based on the results obtained, the authors go on to recommend the deployment of batteries with higher round-trip efficiency, such as lithium-ion, for stationary grid operation in the first instance.
本文对四种固定电池技术（锂离子、铅酸、钠硫和钒氧化还原液流）的累积能源需求（CED）和全球变暖潜能（GWP）进行了比较生命周期评估。分析针对其循环寿命的完全利用和六种不同的固定应用进行了。由于锂离子的 CED 和 GWP 影响较低，因此对其工艺链进行了定性分析，以使用 ReCiPe-2008 方法评估其对 17 个中点影响类别的影响。结果发现，一般来说，电池的使用阶段对其生命周期影响具有重要意义。因此，仅在制造出口处（“摇篮到大门分析”）根据电池的质量或容量来比较其环境性能是有误导性的，而忽略了其使用阶段的影响，特别是当它们具有不同的特征参数时。此外，在大多数情况下，电池的相对排名与所研究的固定应用场景没有明显的相关性。基于所获得的结果，作者建议在固定电网运行中首先部署具有更高往返效率的电池，例如锂离子电池。
