Author
Listed:
- Sanna Wickerts
- Rickard Arvidsson
- Anders Nordelöf
- Magdalena Svanström
- Patrik Johansson
Abstract
Batteries are enablers for reducing fossil‐fuel dependency and climate‐change impacts. In this study, a prospective life cycle assessment (LCA) of large‐scale production of two different sodium‐ion battery (SIB) cells is performed with a cradle‐to‐gate system boundary. The SIB cells modeled have Prussian white cathodes and hard carbon anodes based only on abundant elements and thus constitute potentially preferable options to current lithium‐ion battery (LIB) cells from a mineral resource scarcity point of view. The functional unit was 1 kWh theoretical electricity storage capacity, and the specific energy density of the cells was 160 Wh/kg. Data for the cathode active material come from a large‐scale facility under construction and data for the SIB cell production is based on a large‐scale LIB cell gigafactory. For other SIB cell materials, prospective inventory data was obtained from a generic eight‐step procedure developed, which can be used by other LCA practitioners. The results show that both SIB cells indeed have considerably lower mineral resource scarcity impacts than nickel‐manganese‐cobalt (NMC)‐type LIB cells in a cradle‐to‐gate perspective, while their global warming impacts are on par. Main recommendations to SIB manufacturers are to source fossil‐free electricity for cell production and use hard carbon anodes based on lignin instead of phenolic resin. Additionally, since none of the assessed electrolytes had clearly lower cradle‐to‐gate impacts than any other, more research into SIB electrolyte materials with low environmental and resource impacts should be prioritized. An improvement of the SIB cell production model would be to obtain large‐scale production data specific to SIB cells.
Suggested Citation
Sanna Wickerts & Rickard Arvidsson & Anders Nordelöf & Magdalena Svanström & Patrik Johansson, 2024.
"Prospective life cycle assessment of sodium‐ion batteries made from abundant elements,"
Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 28(1), pages 116-129, February.
Handle:
RePEc:bla:inecol:v:28:y:2024:i:1:p:116-129
DOI: 10.1111/jiec.13452
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:inecol:v:28:y:2024:i:1:p:116-129. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1088-1980 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.