Wang Yixuan, Tang Baojun, Shen Meng, Wu Yizhou, Qu Shen, Hu Yujie, Feng Ye
Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, 100081, China; School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, 100081, China; Beijing Key Lab of Energy Economics and Environmental Management, Beijing, 100081, China.
Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, 100081, China; School of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, 100081, China; Beijing Key Lab of Energy Economics and Environmental Management, Beijing, 100081, China; Sustainable Development Research Institute for Economy and Society of Beijing, Beijing, 100081, China; Collaborative Innovation Center of Electric Vehicles in Beijing, Beijing, 100081, China.
J Environ Manage. 2022 Jul 15;314:115083. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115083. Epub 2022 Apr 18.
The number of spent lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) will increase exponentially in the coming decade with the retirement of electric vehicles (EVs). There is a knowledge gap in assessing the environmental impact of different terminal disposal paths for EV LIBs in China. Here, we take representative lithium iron phosphate (LFP) power batteries as example and carry out a bottom-up life cycle assessment (LCA). The life cycle stages of battery manufacturing, use, second life and battery recycling are considered to conduct a cradle-to-grave environmental impact analysis. To investigate the environmental benefits of end-of-life (EoL) stage for LFP batteries, two EoL management scenarios are considered in this study. The first one combines second life application with battery recycling, and the second recycles the retired batteries directly after EV use. The result shows that the secondary application of retired LFP batteries in energy storage systems (ESSs) can effectively reduce the net environmental impact of LIB life cycle, especially for fossil fuel depletion. When the service life of secondary use is increased from 1 year to 10 years, the environmental benefits of different impact categories will increase by 0.24-4.62 times. For direct recycle scenario, recycling retired LFP batteries can save more than 30% of metal resources. By comparison, we find that recycling lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NCM) batteries has greater environmental benefits than recycling LFP batteries for all impact categories. When considering the environmental benefits at the EoL stage, most life cycle environmental impact is likely to be offset or even show positive benefits if more than 50% of power batteries can be reused in ESSs after retirement.
随着电动汽车(EV)的退役,未来十年废旧锂离子电池(LIB)的数量将呈指数级增长。在中国,评估电动汽车LIB不同终端处置路径的环境影响方面存在知识空白。在此,我们以代表性的磷酸铁锂(LFP)动力电池为例,进行自下而上的生命周期评估(LCA)。考虑电池制造、使用、二次利用和电池回收的生命周期阶段,进行从摇篮到坟墓的环境影响分析。为了研究LFP电池报废(EoL)阶段的环境效益,本研究考虑了两种EoL管理方案。第一种方案将二次利用与电池回收相结合,第二种方案在电动汽车使用后直接回收退役电池。结果表明,退役LFP电池在储能系统(ESS)中的二次应用可以有效降低LIB生命周期的净环境影响,特别是对于化石燃料消耗。当二次使用的使用寿命从1年增加到10年时,不同影响类别的环境效益将增加0.24 - 4.62倍。对于直接回收方案,回收退役LFP电池可节省超过30%的金属资源。相比之下,我们发现对于所有影响类别,回收镍钴锰酸锂(NCM)电池比回收LFP电池具有更大的环境效益。在考虑EoL阶段的环境效益时,如果超过50%的动力电池在退役后能够在ESS中重复使用,那么大部分生命周期环境影响可能会被抵消,甚至显示出积极效益。