Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com
Available online
Available at www.sciencedirect.com
online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
ProcediaManufacturing
Procedia Manufacturing4300(2020)
(2019)32–39
000–000
Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

17th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing

17th Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing
Methodology
Methodology for
for the
the Simulation
Simulation based
based Energy
Energy Efficiency
Efficiency
Assessment of Battery Cell Manufacturing Systems
Assessment of Battery Cell Manufacturing Systems
Max Weebera,∗, Johannes Wannerbb , Philipp Schlegelbb ,
Max Weebera,∗, Johannes Wanner , Philipp a,b
Schlegel ,
Kai Peter Birkea,c
a,c , Alexander Sauera,b
a Fraunhofer Institute
Kai Peter Birke , Alexander Sauer
for Manufacturing Engineering and Automation IPA, Nobenstr. 12, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany
a FraunhoferbInstitute
Institute for
for Manufacturing Engineering
Energy Efficiency and EEP,
in Production Automation IPA,
Nobelstr. 12,Nobenstr.
D-7056912, D-70569
Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany
Germany
c b Institute for Energy Efficiency in Production EEP, Nobelstr. 12, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany
Institute for Photovoltaics (ipv), Electrical Energy Storage Systems, Pfaffenwaldring 47, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany
c Institute for Photovoltaics (ipv), Electrical Energy Storage Systems, Pfaffenwaldring 47, D-70569 Stuttgart, Germany

Abstract
Abstract
The trend towards electrification in the energy and transportation sector requires the build-up of new production capacities for the
The
next trend towards
generation electrification
of high-end batteryincells
the energy and Consistent
and packs. transportation
highsector requires
quality theminimum
products, build-up of new production
manufacturing capacities
costs for the
and modularity
next generation of high-end battery cells and packs. Consistent high quality products, minimum manufacturing
of the production system are considered central planning targets. Here we present a multi-level-simulation approach that is able costs and modularity
of the production
to complement system are planning
conventional considered central
targets planning
while targets.
assessing the Here
usagewe of present a multi-level-simulation
energy within approach considering
battery cell manufacturing that is able
to complement
machine conventional
availability and site planning
locations.targets while assessment
The energy assessing the usage ofsimulation
combines energy within
models battery cell manufacturing
at machine considering
and process level with a
machine
model that availability and site locations.
specifies technical The energy
building systems assessment
and the building combines
shell. Thesimulation
simulationmodels
model wasat machine and process
parameterized basedlevel with a
on insights
model that specifies
from scientific technical
literature, buildingmanufacturer
equipment systems and data
the building
sheets and shell.
wasThe simulation
checked model was parameterized
for plausability through expertbased on insights
interviews. Our
from scientific
results show thatliterature,
improving equipment
the energymanufacturer
efficiency of data sheets /and
the coating wasprocess
drying checkedcanfor plausability
reduce through
total energy expert interviews.
consumption Our
of the battery
results show that
manufacturing improving
system by 13the energy
to 30 efficiencyonofmachine
% depending the coating / drying process
availability. can reduce
Considering total energy
the location consumption
of the reference of the
factory, battery
Germany
manufacturing
performed bestsystem
in terms byof
13primary
to 30 % depending on machine
energy demand, Sweden availability. Considering
best in terms of energy therelated
location
COof2 the reference
emissions andfactory,
China Germany
achieved
performed best in
superior results in terms
terms ofof energy
primaryrelated demand, Sweden best in terms of energy related CO2 emissions and China achieved
energycosts.
superior results in terms of energy related costs.
©c 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
 2019 The Authors, Published by Elsevier B.V.
This
c is an
2019 open
The accessPublished
Authors, article under the CC BY-NC-ND
by Elsevier license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
B.V. committee
Peer review under the responsibility of the scientific
Peer review under the responsibility of the scientific committee
Peer review under the responsibility of the scientific committee of of
thethe
of
Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing.
Global
the Conference
Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing.
on Sustainable Manufacturing.
Keywords: battery cell manufacturing; energy efficiency; modelling and simulation; factory planing
Keywords: battery cell manufacturing; energy efficiency; modelling and simulation; factory planing

1. Introduction and Background

1. Introduction and Background
A major barrier to the realization of energy efficiency measures in industry is the lack of information on cost
andAbenefits
major barrier
of suchtomeasures
the realization of energy
[1, p. 298]. efficiency measures
Simulation-based approaches in industry
can assistis in
thethe
lack of information
assessment on cost
of energy use
and benefits of such measures [1, p. 298]. Simulation-based approaches can assist in the assessment
and efficiency measures before these measures are implemented in the real system. Hence, the simulation based of energy use
and efficiency measures before these measures are implemented in the real system. Hence, the simulation
assessment of energy efficiency allows informed decisions and thus is able to reducing investment risks for industrial based
assessment of energy
organizations. efficiency
Likewise, allows
efficiency informed
measures can decisions and thus
be considered is early
in the able to reducing
stages of theinvestment risks forprocess.
factory planning industrial
organizations. Likewise, efficiency measures can be considered in the early stages of the factory planning process.

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 711 970 1017.

∗ Corresponding
E-mail address:author. Tel.: +49 711 970 1017.
max.weeber@ipa.fraunhofer.de
E-mail address: max.weeber@ipa.fraunhofer.de
2351-9789  c 2019 The Authors, Published by Elsevier B.V.
2351-9789
2351-9789
Peer review© 2020the
cunder
2019 The
The Authors.
Authors, Published
Published
responsibility by Elsevier
by Elsevier
of the scientific B.V. B.V.
committee of the Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing.
Thisreview
Peer is an open
underaccess article under
the responsibility thescientific
of the CC BY-NC-ND
committeelicense (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
of the Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing.
Peer review under the responsibility of the scientific committee of the Global Conference on Sustainable Manufacturing.
10.1016/j.promfg.2020.02.179
 Max Weeber et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 43 (2020) 32–39 33
2 M. Weeber / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

The global switch from fuel driven to electric vehicles has led to a rapid increase in the demand for battery cells,
which might soon exceed the global existing production capacities [2, p. 9]. It has been stated that from all the life
cycle, the assembly and manufacturing of lithium-ion battery cells represent about half of light-duty vehicle product
specific greenhouse gas emissions [3, p. 30]. This underlines the importance of energy efficiency in the manufacturing
process of battery cells. Consequently, the aim of this paper is to provide a methodology for the assessment of energy
use in manufacturing systems with a special focus on the specifics of battery cell manufacturing.
Peters et al. performed an extensive review of existing life-cycle assessment studies on lithium-ion batteries with
a focus on the production process, going back until the year 2000. They perceive that only a few studies provide
the data basis for all the other studies, but still the results of all studies vary significantly. The energy demand for
battery production varies from 56 to 694 kWh/kWh prod , with an average of 328 kWh/kWh prod and the greenhouse gas
emissions vary between 40 and 270 kg CO2 /kWh prod with an average of 110 kg CO2 /kWh prod across all chemistries.
The main reason for differing results was identified to be the modelling approach, while top-down models produce
higher results than bottom-up models and likely provide more complete data. In general, the electricity consumption,
including its sourcing, was found to have a great impact on the greenhouse gas emissions in battery cell manufacturing
[4, p. 491] [5, p. 113] [6, p. 182].

2. Methodolgy
2.1. Battery manufacturing system model and simulation

The methodology proposed in this paper uses a modelling and simulation approach bridging two levels of battery
cell manufacturing system. The first level covers the machine and process chain model while the second level in-
cludes both technical building systems and the building shell model. Data handling between the two levels is realized
offline. This means that the energy demand of different process chain segments are allocated as internal heat gains to
corresponding building zones within the factory (ref. Figure 1).
The process chain is mod-
elled using the software Tec-  Proces s SB+ Building Zone 1 SB = System Boundary SB+ Building Zone n
 Proces s s pecific
nomatix Plant Simulation 14. param eters
P3 SB+ Process Chain energy dem and
1st
Here, organizational data on  Machine
param eters
level
P2.1  Production
output
P1 P4 P5 P6 … … Pn
working hours and shift sys-  Organizational P2.2  Buffer s tock
data
tem is complemented by pro-
cess and machine specific SB+ Building shell
parameters including process  Env ironm ental SB+ Zone 1 SB+ Zone n
time and energy demand. As data 2nd  Manufacturing
SB+ Technical Building Systems s y s tem energy
level dem and
a result the production out-  Indoor clim ate
requirem ents
+ - +

put, the buffer stocks and the

process specific energy de- 1

mand are derived from the Fig. 1. Macro structure of battery cell manufacturing system model.
© Fraunhofer IPA

first level of the simulation.

The technical building systems and the building shell are modeled in the software EQUA IDA ICE 4.8. Aside from
the process specific energy demand, the input parameters cover environmental data on outside temperature, humidity
and solar irradiation. This data is taken from Meteonorm 7.3. Besides, indoor climate requirements (e.g. relative
humidity, temperature) are specified for the different zones of the factory building. The total energy demand of the
manufacturing system is the sum of the process specific energy demand plus the energy demand for the operation of
the technical building systems. The simulation period is defined to be one year in order to consider seasonal changes
of environmental conditions. Several interviews have been conducted with experts from science and industry in order
to verify the assumptions to ensure a high level of generalizability.

2.2. Model scope and limitations

In this study we assume that the modeled factory will only produce 21700 lithium-ion cells. Currently available
commercial 21700 cells have a capacity of up to 4.8 Ah and an energy density of up to 16.77 Wh per cell [7]. Based
34 Max Weeber et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 43 (2020) 32–39
M. Weeber / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 3

on expert interviews and considering further improvements in the technology the energy density of the produced cells
in this study is assumed to be 17.3 Wh per cell.
The reference factory in this study houses only one production line and has a total production capacity of 0.23 GWh
and a production area of 6.000 m2 . Generally, larger production capacities are achieved by installing additional pro-
duction lines rather than scaling individual production lines [8, p. 21]. Reviewing the size and production capacity of
existing factories used to produce battery cells, the specific production area per annual production capacity are be-
tween 0.010 and 0.025 m2 /(kWh/year). The production area of the reference factory is divided into four zones, namely
“mixing”, “electrode manufacturing”, “assembly”(including “electrolyte filling”) and “formation and aging”. A clean
room environment is assumed for electrode manufacturing. Besides, electrolyte filling is located in the assembly zone
and inside a microenvironment. Dry room conditions are assumed for the assembly zone. Therefore it is not modelled
as an individual building zone. The requirement for relative humidity, dew point and temperature are specified for
each zone according to the recommendations provided by [9, p. 251] [10, p. 696].
100 m
The share of additional areas for logistics, utili-
ties and administration are complemented based on ex-
Foy er Adm inis tration/Utilities
142 m ² 856 m ² pert interviews. The factory is designed as a single-
Electrode Manufacturing
(Anode/Cathode)
As s em bly story building with a length of 100 meters, a width of
950 m ²

Mix ing
1561 m ² 60 meters and a height of 6 meters. Factory layout, in-
335 m ²
Temperature
22 °C +/- 2 °C
Temperature
cluding 3D model and indoor climate requirements are
ca. 15%
rel. humidity
22 °C +/- 2 °C
summarized in Fig. 2.
60 m

ca. -8 °C dew point

Form ation and Aging

< 1%
rel. humidity The factory is assumed to operate in a three-shift
1395 m ²
ca. -40 °C dew point
system from Monday to Friday, resulting in 250 work-
Logis tics
718 m ²
Temperature
22 °C +/- 5 °C
days throughout the year. Only for high temperature
rel. humidity
45% +/- 15%
(HT) aging, formation, room temperature (RT) ag-
ing and testing 24/7 operation is assumed. Besides,
randomly distributed machine failures are considered
Fig. 2. Floor plan of the modelled factory (based on[9, p. 252]).
in the simulation model and defined by the parame-
4

© Fraunhofer IPA | Monat 2015 | Name: Telefon, E-Mail

ters availability and a mean time to restore. The machine model considers the operating states “operation” and
“standby” and respective values for their average energy demand. The standby energy demand of all machines is
assumed to be 200 W. The energy demand of auxiliary equipment including e.g. compressed air or process cooling
are not covered by the model. Internal heat gains from human occupancy are also not considered. Relevant machine
states such as ramp-up are neglected and the transition between different machine operating states are not specified.
The data for the parameterization of the individual process steps is acquired in a mixed approach composing both
expert interviews with secondary data from literature and machine manufacturer documents.
2.3. Scenarios

Factory throughput has been identified as a key factor for energy intensity in battery manufacturing [11]. Hence,
the reliability of individual processes is specified by means of the parameter machine availability. In the worst-case
scenario, all machines have an average availability of 50 %. The best case-scenario uses an availability of 90 %. The
intermediate scenario defines an availability of 75 %.
Table 1. Assumed energy costs and emission factors of the modelled locations.

Electricity Price Electricity Emission Natural Gas Price Natural Gas Emission
[e/kWh] [g CO2 /kWh] [e/kWh] [g CO2 /kWh]

Stuttgart, Germany 0.1279 [12, p. 39] 489 [14, p. 9] 0.0269 [13] 200 [20, p. 41]
Ningde, China 0.0642 [12, p. 41] 700 [15, p. 2783] [16, p. 272] 0.0445 [18, p. 376] [19, p. 589] 200
Skellefteå, Sweden 0.0648 [13] 44 [17, p. 9] 0.047 [13] 200

Besides, the coating/drying process is considered a major driver of the overall energy demand in a battery man-
ufacturing system. Hence, the impact of improving the energy effciency of this specific process step is evaluated.
Compared to a state of the art baseline scenario the optimized scenario assumes that drying time can be reduced by
50 %. This scenario implies further process improvements in the future, e.g. the reduction of solvents concentrations
in slurries, the replacement of NMP based with water based solvent or the use of efficient laser drying technologies
 Max Weeber et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 43 (2020) 32–39 35
4 M. Weeber / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

[21, p. 235] [22, p. 56] [23, p. 77]. As the coating / drying machine is synchronized with the calender and the slitting
machine, it is assumed that their respective process times also reduced by 50 %. Power input of the machines is not
varied and all other system components, like buffers, remain unchanged.
Last the location of the factory is varied in order to assess the influence of the environmental conditions, regional
electricity mixes and energy prices. At all locations, the effects of the various machines availability and the additionally
implemented energy efficiency measures are being investigated.
In our research we compare the location Stuttgart, Germany with Ningde in Fujian Province, China, the production
site of the asian cell manufacturer CATL and Skellefteå in Sweden, the main production site of future Swedish cell
manufacturer Northvolt. Industrial electricity and gas prices as well as emission factors are summarized in Table 1.

3. Results
3.1. Parametrization of the process model
3.1.1. Mixing and electrode manufacturing
The process parameters in electrode manufacturing are assumed to be identical for anode and cathode - except
for the energy consumption of the drying process. According to an interviewed expert, the mixers for anode and
cathode are usually dimensioned to provide slurry for one whole electrode coil in one mixer batch. The most common
coils have a width of 600 mm and the length is restricted by its maximum weight to avoid excessive weight load on
machines and to facilitate intralogistics [24, p. 240] [25, p. 2][26, p. 239]. For this paper a length of 650 m is assumed.
To reach a coating thickness of 200 µm after drying, 195 liters of slurry are needed [27, p. 239] [28, p. 701] [29, p. 5].
Accordingly, the model RV11VAC with a maximum batch volume of 375 liters is identified as a suitable mixer from
the manufacturer Eirich. It can produce up to four batches per hour and has a maximum power input Pmax of 54.2 kW.
In operation, power input is on average 83 % of Pmax , hence a value of 45 kW is used for Pop in the model. According
to Eirich, 80 batches per day are possible in three-shift operation [30]. This equates to an average process time of
18 minutes. For coating, slot-die processing is a method that is widely used in electrode manufacturing and that
allows homogenous coating at high line speeds of more than 50 m/min [31, p. 32] [26, p. 293]. However, the speed
is limited by the drying process that follows directly after. In this paper a coating line similar to the ProCoater by
equipment manufacturer B&W MEGTEC is assumed. It is compatible to coil widths of up to 600 mm and speeds of
up to 20 m/min at a total dryer length of 20 m. Based on expert interviews and internal documents an average process
time of one hour is assumed for coating and drying a whole coil which equates to an average line speed of 10.8 m/min.
Because the vaporization enthalpy of NMP is only one fifth of water, cathode drying consumes more energy than
anode drying [32, p. 170]. Therefore, a larger air flow than in the anode dryer is needed, which must be heated to
the drying temperature [32, p. 176] [33, p. 25]. For anode drying, an energy demand of 1 kWh/m is assumed [23,
p. 27]. This results in an average power input during operation of 650 kW that is implemented in the model. Cathode
drying is assumed to consume four times more energy, based on measurements in a pilot plant confirmed through
expert interviews. Hence, an average power input during operation of 2600 kW is used in the model. For modeling
the calendering process, data of extrusion equipment manufacturer Breyer is used as a reference. At a total length of
10 m their calender is compatible with coils up to 1000 m long and 800 mm wide. It can be operated at line speeds of
0.5 - 100 m/min. It is assumed that calender operation is synchronized with the coater, so an average process time of
one hour is implemented in the model. Each of the two press rollers is driven by a servomotor with a maximum power
input of 32 kW. Unwinding and rewinding equipment both use a servomotor with a maximum power input of 4.5 kW
[35, p. 1012] [36]. It is also assumed that the calender is coupled directly to the slitter. Therefore, power input of the
rewinding equipment will be considered in the slitting step. This results in a maximum power input of the calender
of 68.5 kW. According to the assumption used in the mixing process we consider Pop to be 80 % of Pmax , so 55 kW
are used in the model. For electrode slitting mechanical cutting equipment as it is offered by manufacturer Kampf is
widely used and allows cutting speeds of up to 200 m/min [37, p. 63] [24]. However, in this paper, laser-cutting is the
assumed technology used for slitting, as it avoids tool wear and allows the production of flexible geometries with one
tool [38, p. 215] [39, p. 90]. For the line speed of 10.8 m/min observed in this paper it is assumed that a laser power of
100 W is sufficient [40] [38, p. 217]. As a reference product, Spectra-Physics VGEN-QS-HE-100, an infrared pulsed
laser with a laser power of 100 W and a wall-plug-efficiency of 20 % is used [41]. The lasers average power input
during operation is therefore estimated to be 500 W. Considering a width of 70 mm for the electrodes in a 21700 cell
it is assumed that one coated coil (600 mm) can be slit into eight slit coils, which requires seven cuts. Hence, seven
36 Max Weeber et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 43 (2020) 32–39
M. Weeber / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 5

lasers are needed. Adding the above-mentioned rewinding equipment operating at 80 % of its maximum power leads
to an average power input during operation of the slitting station of 7.1 kW.
Further drying of the slit coils takes 12 hours at a temperature of around 80 ◦ C according to an interviewed expert.
In this paper model UFTS-750 by drying equipment manufacturer Memmert is used as a reference with a power input
of 7 kW and the a volume of 750 l [42]. It is assumed that 24 slit coils can be dryed in one batch. In the next step,
electrodes are laser cut to length. To determine the maximum number of single cells per slit coil the specific capacity
is consulted. In accordance with documents provided by experts, a value of 30 Ah/m2 is assumed in this paper [43,
p. 261]. For one slit coil (650 m x 0.07 m) this results in a maximum number of 285 cells with a capacity of 4.8 Ah
each. To keep operating times synchronized a process time per slit coil of 7:30 min is assumed. In this time, 284
cuts along the coil width of 70 mm must be made which equates to a cutting speed of less than 3 m/min. Hence, it is
estimated that the same laser as in slitting can be used for this process. It is assumed that unwinding equipment also
uses less energy than in the previous steps because the handled coils are now significantly smaller. An average power
input of 1.5 kW is implemented in the model for this step. The process time of 3 sec/cell are realistic in the following
winding procedure of the automated industrial scale winding machines [44, p. 26] [45, p. 642] [46, p. 6] [47].
3.1.2. Cell assembly
Analog to the winding equipment used in the above processes, we consider that during assembly four different rolls
are wound together with an average power input of 5 kW. The process time and energy consumption are assumed to be
the same for the casing station. For the contacting of li-ion cells the super-sonic welding machine C20-B by equipment
manufacturer Schunk is used as a reference for the process model. Its power input is 3 kW. A further 1 kW is added
for object handling to result in an average power input during operation of 4 kW. The process time is estimated to be
synchronized with the previous steps at 3 sec/cell [48]. For filling and sealing, cells are placed on a tray in batches
of 285 (15 x 19) and moved to a micro-environment where vacuum is induced. Considering a diameter of 21 mm per
cell, it is assumed that a volume of 0.25 m3 (0.5 m x 0.5 m x 1 m) is enough to house one tray plus the filling and
sealing equipment above it. To ensure synchronization with the previous steps, process time for one batch must be
below 7:30 min. Therefore, pumps TRIVAC D 40 B and RUVAC WA 251 from the product portfolio of vacuum pump
manufacturer Leybold are used as a reference for the model. They amount to a total power input of 3.3 kW [49]. After
filling, the cells are sealed using laser welding [50, p. 62] [51, p. 5]. A necessary laser power of 500 W is assumed for
this process [52] [53, p. 5]. As in the slitting process mentioned above, a wallplug efficiency of the laser of 20 % is
assumed. Allowing three seconds for the sealing of one cell, it is estimated that three lasers are needed in the machine.
This equates to an average power input during operation of 7.5 kW for the lasers. Adding a further 2 kW for handling
and filling of the cells the power input of the filling/sealing stage in the model equates to 12.8 kW. For washing and
drying the cells after assembly a machine by manufacturer Accumation is used as a reference. Cells move through it
on a conveyor lie at a speed of 2-4 m/min. Considering a total machine length of 8.5 m a process time of 3 minutes
is assumed per tray. The energy demand is 72 kW for heating, 3.7 kW for ventilation and 3 kW for the water pump.
It is assumed that average energy consumption during operation is 80 % of the maximum load. Therefore, 63 kW are
implemented in the process model [54].
3.1.3. Formation and aging
It is assumed that the processes high temperature (HT) aging, formation, and room temperature (RT) aging and
testing run fully automatic. Therefore, process times and energy consumption are fixed values. They operate in a 24/7
manner. The process time of high temperature aging is estimated to be two hours based on expert interviews. To
maintain the demanded temperature of 40 to 50 ◦ C, a power demand of 2.5 kW is assumed for the aging shelf.
Estimated time for the formation process varies from hours to days in literature [55, p. 2] [43, p. 230] [29, p. 14]
[26, p. 294]. But according to an interviewed expert, the process can by now be finished in 12 hours which is used as
a reference in the model. It is assumed that seven complete charge-/discharge cycles with an charging efficiency of
90 % are executed [28, p. 704] [56, p. 2] [57, p. 41]. Considering a capacity of 17.3 Wh per cell, 135 Wh are needed
to complete seven cycles. It is assumed that 40 % of the energy released during discharging is recycled and used to
charge the following cells [56, p. 3]. Therefore, a total energy consumption of 81 Wh per cell is estimated for the
formation process. This equates to an average power demand of 6.75 W over the process time of 12 hours which is
implemented in the model. For the room temperature aging of the cells, a storage time of three weeks is assumed based
on literature and expert interviews [27, p. 243] [26, p. 294]. As with high temperature aging, the energy consumption
of this process stage will be considered in the building model.
 Max Weeber et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 43 (2020) 32–39 37
6 M. Weeber / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

For battery testing and sorting the automatic machine

TOB-BT-1810B by the equipment manufacturer TOB new
350 328 energy is used as a reference. It can process 3000 cylindri-
cal cells per hour and sort them into ten categories. This
300 290 286
283
equates to 1.2 seconds per cell. Accordingly, the process
250
247 52 239
133
time for one tray of 285 cells is assumed to be six minutes.
93

132
The power demand is 1.6 kW [58].
51
200 92
173
kWh/kWhprod

161 166
3.2. Simulation results
144
150 20
47 136 140
33 129
117 120 13

The process energy consumption is identical for each

22 32

18 96 101
43 93
100
scenario of machine availability and independent from the
30
12 29
20

50
factories location. The contribution of electrode manufac-
turing to total energy demand is greater than 85%. The
0 composition of building energy demand varies between the
factory locations. Auxiliary ventilation only accounts for a
small share at all three locations. Due to weather condi-
tions the building energy consumption in Sweden and Ger-
30
1 27,4 many is dominated by fuel heating. The share of energy
© Fraunhofer IPA
2,5 used for electric cooling decreases as machine availability
25

22,1
increases. In China energy demands for fuel heating and
2,5
electric cooling are nearly equal depending on the scenario.
20

17,0
18,7
16,9
The building energy consumption for all three locations is
16,0
only slightly reduced by the reduction of the drying pro-
€/kWhprod

0,9
2,3 6,3
15,0
14,2
cess.
15 0,6

2,3 6,2
11,5
0,8 10,0 10,2
9,7
Due to the environmental conditions, it is apparent that
10 0,9
7,1
2,2
7,4
0,5 8,6
0,6
8,7
1,5
the total energy consumption in Fig. 3 is the highest in
0,8
2,0
5,8
0,5
5,9
Sweden for all machine availability scenarios. While the
total energy consumption is lowest in China for the 50 %
5 1,4

availability scenario, it is lowest in Germany for the 75 %

0
and 90 % scenarios. By the increase of machine availabil-
ity, a lower energy demand and lower emissions are re-
alized for all scenarios. Besides the differences in energy
180
consumption between the locations become less signifi-
170,3
1
10,4
cant. For all modelled scenarios, the energy consumption
© Fraunhofer IPA
160
is dominated by electricity. The share of natural gas con-
139,9
140
10,2
sumption is lowest in China and highest in Sweden. the
120 113,8
reduction of drying time leads to a similar drop of total
103,7
energy demand for all modelled scenarios. Throughout all
kg CO2/kWhprod

18,6
4,0
100 93,2
90,3
2,7
scenarios, Germany has the highest energy cost because
80
18,3

67,7
72,9 of notably higher electricity cost. On the other hand, Ger-
many also shows the highest potential for energy cost sav-
3,5
6,5 59,5 60,0
60 4,4 2,3
47,0
5,9 38,9
ings through reduced drying times. China exhibits the low-
35,1
40 33,0 4,0
est energy cost of the analyzed scenarios. In Sweden, cost
20 26,7 26,4
14,8
12,3 11,3
8,9
for natural gas is considerably higher than at the other
0
9,3
8,6 6,4 5,8
two locations. It becomes evident that for Germany and
China, emissions from electricity clearly outbalance emis-
sions from natural gas. In Sweden, the emission values
electricity
Emissions from electricity natural
Emissions gas
from natural gas are dominated by natural gas. While a reduction of dry-
Fig. 3. (a) Total energy demand; (b) Total energy cost (c) Total
CO2 emissions per kWh produced battery capacity of the modelled
ing time results in a significant decrease of emissions in
1
©scenarios
∗
Fraunhofer IPA ( with reduced drying time)
Germany and China, this efficiency measure only slightly
affects emission values in Sweden. Still, CO2 emissions in
 38 Max Weeber et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 43 (2020) 32–39
M. Weeber / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000 7

Sweden are far lower than at the other two locations over all modelled scenarios. In the scenario with least emissions
(availability 90 %, reduced drying time), emissions in Sweden equate to 8.9 kg CO2 per produced kWh battery capac-
ity. Through the variation of drying time the specific energy demand of the manufacturing system could be reduced
from 13 to 30 % depending on the machine availability.
4. Conclusion and Outlook
The results show that machine availability is a key factor for energy efficient battery cell manufacturing. Besides,
low machine availability likely lead to blockage in the material flow due to increased buffer stocks. While a steady
material flow avoids energy waste in blocked machines, it also increases throughput. Because the energy demand
at building level stays relatively constant, its impact on specific energy consumption drops as production output
increases. This means that specific energy demand of manufacturing sites operating at high availability is dictated by
the process itself rather than by choice of location. Still, the location affects other factors directly linked to energy
use. Regional differences in CO2 emissions resulting from electricity use are striking. While the specific energy
consumption is the lowest in Germany, the costs are the highest. China with the lowest energy cost shows the highest
CO2 emissions of all scenarios. While specific energy demand is highest in Sweden, it still has the lowest CO2
emission values. An ecofriendly battery factory location should not be chosen based on the regional climate, but rather
based on the regional energy economy. Results considering drying times that are reduced by 50 % show that efficiency
measures for single processes can significantly reduce the specific energy demand for individuell cells. However, the
saving potential is not fully used. In our case the production output does not increase because the assembly stage is
operating at maximum capacity and the reduction of drying time leads to a blockage of machines and buffers before
the assembly stages. This means, that the optimization of a single process parameter should always go along with
adjustments of the other elements of the process chain. Specific energy consumption in this simulation study varies
between 93 kWh/kWh prod in the best-case scenario and 328 kWh/kWh prod in the worst case. Specific CO2 emissions
vary between 9 kg/kWh prod in the best-case scenario and 170 kg/kWh prod in the worst case.
Future research will focus on detailing the multi-level model and the assessment of parameter sensitivities.
Acknowledgements
This research was conducted within the scope of the project “DigiBattPro 4.0 - BW”. The authors gratefully ac-
knowledge the financial support of the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Labor and Housing Baden-Württemberg.
References
[1] E. Cagno, E. Worrell, A. Trianni, G. Pugliese, A novel approach for barriers to industrial energy efficiency, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, 19 (2013).
[2] A. Thielmann, C. Neef, T. Hettesheimer, H. Doescher, M. Wietschel, J. Tuebke, Energiespeicher-Roadmap (Update 2017): Hochenergie-
Batterien 2030+ und Perspektiven zukuenftiger Batterietechnologien, Karlsruhe, 2017.
[3] M. Romare, L. Dahlloef, IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, The Life Cycle Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
from Lithium-Ion Batteries: A Study with Focus on Current Technology and Batteries for light-duty Vehicles. No. C 243, Stockholm, 2017.
[4] J.F. Peters, M. Baumann, B. Zimmermann, J. Braun, M. Weil, The environmental impact of Li-Ion batteries and the role of key parameters A
review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 67 (2017).
[5] L.A.-W. Ellingsen, G. Majeau-Bettez, B. Singh, A.K. Srivastava, L.O. Valen, A.H. Strmman, Life Cycle Assessment of a Lithium-Ion Battery
Vehicle Pack, Journal of Industrial Ecology 18 (2014).
[6] H. Ambrose, A. Kendall, Effects of battery chemistry and performance on the life cycle greenhouse gas intensity of electric mobility, Trans-
portation Research Part D: Transport and Environment 47 (2016).
[7] J.B. Quinn, T. Waldmann, K. Richter, M. Kasper, M. Wohlfahrt-Mehrens, Energy Density of Cylindrical Li-Ion Cells: A Comparison of
Commercial 18650 to the 21700 Cells, J. Electrochem. Soc. 165 (2018).
[8] R. Simon, Energiespeichersysteme und Konzepte fuer die Umsetzung in der Produktion, Frankfurt (Oder), 2010.
[9] R. Simon, Aufbau einer Fabrik zur Zellfertigung, in: R. Korthauer (Ed.), Handbuch Lithium-Ionen-Batterien, Springer Berlin, 2013.
[10] N. Bognar, M.-A. Filz, C. Herrmann, S. Thiede, Assessment of Changeability in Battery Cell Production Systems, Procedia CIRP 72 (2018).
[11] J.B. Dunn, L. Gaines, J.C. Kelly, C. James, K.G. Gallagher, The significance of Li-ion batteries in electric vehicle life-cycle energy and
emissions and recycling’s role in its reduction, Energy Environ. Sci. 8 (2015).
[12] K. Grave, M. Hazrat, S. Boeve, F.v. Blücher, C. Bourgault, N. Bader, B. Breitschopf, N. Friedrichsen, M. Arens, A. Aydemir, M. Pudlik, V.
Duscha, J. Ordonez, C. Lutz, A. Großmann, M. Flaute, Stromkosten der energieintensiven Industrie: Ein internationaler Vergleich. Zusammen-
fassung der Ergebnisse, Berlin, 2015.
[13] eurostat, Electricity prices for non-household consumers, 2018.
[14] P. Icha, G. Kuhs, Entwicklung der spezifischen Kohlendioxid-Emissionen des deutschen Strommix in den Jahren 1990-2017: Climate Change
11/18. Aktualisierung auf Basis von Climate Change 15/2017, Dessau-Roßlau, 2018.
 Max Weeber et al. / Procedia Manufacturing 43 (2020) 32–39 39
8 M. Weeber / Procedia Manufacturing 00 (2019) 000–000

[15] X. Li, K.J. Chalvatzis, D. Pappas, Chinas electricity emission intensity in 2020 an analysis at provincial level, Energy Procedia 142 (2017).
[16] N. Liu, Z. Ma, J. Kang, A regional analysis of carbon intensities of electricity generation in China, Energy Economics 67 (2017).
[17] A. Moro, L. Lonza, Electricity carbon intensity in European Member States: Impacts on GHG emissions of electric vehicles, Transportation
Research Part D: Transport and Environment 64 (2018).
[18] A. Hu, Q. Dong, On natural gas pricing reform in China, Natural Gas Industry B 2 (2015).
[19] X. Dong, G. Pi, Z. Ma, C. Dong, The reform of the natural gas industry in the PR of China, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Rev. 73 (2017).
[20] K. Jurich, CO2-Emissionsfaktoren für fossile Brennstoffe: Climate Change 27/2016, Dessau-Roßlau, 2016.
[21] D.L. Wood, J. Li, C. Daniel, Prospects for reducing the processing cost of lithium ion batteries, Journal of Power Sources 275 (2015).
[22] C. Yuan, Y. Deng, T. Li, F. Yang, Manufacturing energy analysis of lithium ion battery pack for electric vehicles, CIRP Annals 66 (2017).
[23] Kompetenznetzwerk Lithium-Ionen-Batterien (KLiB) e. V., Batterieforum Deutschland: Posterabstracts und Projektvorstellungen: 24. -26.
Januar 2018, Ritz-Carlton, Berlin, 2018.
[24] Kampf Schneid- und Wickeltechnik GmbH & Co. KG, Maschinen zur Verarbeitung von Anoden- und Kathoden-Materialien, 2018.
[25] Babcock & Wilcox MEGTEC, Advanced Battery Electrode Manufacturing: Complete line integration for electrode coating, drying and solvent
recovery, De Pere, Wisconsin, U.S.A., 2016.
[26] A. Kwade, W. Haselrieder, R. Leithoff, A. Modlinger, F. Dietrich, K. Droeder, Current status and challenges for automotive battery production
technologies, Nature Energy 3 (2018).
[27] A. Kampker, C.-R. Hohenthanner, C. Deutskens, H.H. Heimes, C. Sesterheim, 2013. Fertigungsverfahren von Lithium-Ionen-Zellen und -
Batterien. In: Korthauer, Reiner (Ed.): Handbuch Lithium-Ionen-Batterien. Springer Berlin
[28] J. Kaiser, V. Wenzel, H. Nirschl, B. Bitsch, N. Willenbacher, M. Baunach, M. Schmitt, S. Jaiser, P. Scharfer, W. Schabel, Prozess- und Produk-
tentwicklung von Elektroden für Li-Ionen-Zellen, Chemie Ingenieur Technik 86 (2014).
[29] A. Kampker, H. Heimes, C. Deutskens, M. Ordung, E. Maiser, S. Michaelis, Produktionsprozess einer Lithium-Ionen-Batteriezelle, Aachen,
Frankfurt am Main, 2015.
[30] Maschinenfabrik Gustav Eirich GmbH & Co KG, Aufbereitungstechnik für Lithium-Ionen Batterien, Hardheim, 2018.
[31] M. Schmitt, M. Baunach, L. Wengeler, K. Peters, P. Junges, P. Scharfer, W. Schabel, Slot-die processing of lithium-ion battery electrodesCoat-
ing window characterization, Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification 68 (2013).
[32] S. Ahmed, P.A. Nelson, K.G. Gallagher, D.W. Dees, Energy impact of cathode drying and solvent recovery during lithium-ion battery manu-
facturing, Journal of Power Sources 322 (2016).
[33] K. Hertlein, Reinigen mit Kohlenwasserstoff-Lösemitteln und Wasser im metallbearbeitenden Gewerbe, im Druck- und Elektronikbereich,
expert-Verl., Renningen-Malmsheim, 2000.
[34] A. Kampker, Die Produktion des Hochvolt-Speichersystems, in: A. Kampker (Ed.), Elektromobilproduktion, Springer Berlin, 2014.
[35] M. Lohmüller, Automatisierung mit Durchblick, E-Mobility (2012).
[36] Breyer GmbH Maschinenfabrik, Special calender technology for LiB film, 2018.
[37] R. Sterk, Qualität spielt die Hauptrolle: Durchgängige Automatisierungslösung für Maschinen in der Batterieproduktion, NEXT (2014).
[38] M.R. Kronthaler, F. Schloegl, J. Kurfer, R. Wiedenmann, M.F. Zaeh, G. Reinhart, Laser Cutting in the Production of Lithium Ion Cells, Physics
Procedia 39 (2012).
[39] A.H.A. Lutey, A. Fortunato, S. Carmignato, M. Fiorini, High speed pulsed laser cutting of LiCoO2 Li-ion battery electrodes, Optics & Laser
Technology 94 (2017).
[40] R. Patwa, H. Herfurth, H. Pantsar, S. Heinemann, J. Mazumder, D. Lee, High Speed Laser Cutting of Electrodes for Advanced Batteries.
ICALEO 2010 Congress Proceedings, Plymouth, MI, U.S.A., Ann Arbor, MI, U.S.A., 2010.
[41] Newport Corporation, Laser Processes for Li-ion Battery Cell Manufacturing, Santa Clara, CA, U.S.A., 2016.
[42] Memmert GmbH + Co. KG, Wärme- und Trockenschraenke, Schwabach, 2018.
[43] K.-H. Pettinger, Fertigungsprozesse von Lithium-Ionen-Zellen, in: Handbuch Lithium-Ionen-Batterien, Springer Berlin, 2013.
[44] S. Michaelis, E. Maiser, A. Kampker, H. Heimes, C. Lienemann, S. Wessel, A. Thielmann, A. Sauer, T. Hettesheimer, Roadmap Batterie-
Produktionsmittel 2030: Update 2016, Frankfurt am Main, 2016.
[45] R. Schröder, M. Aydemir, A. Glodde, G. Seliger, Design and Verification of an Innovative Handling System for Electrodes in Manufacturing
Lithium-ion Battery Cells, Procedia CIRP 50 (2016).
[46] Manz AG, LightAssembly: Platform for assembly-driven production solutions, Reutlingen, 2018.
[47] M. Wohlfahrt-Mehrens, W. Braunwarth, Production and process research, 2018.
[48] Schunk Sonosystems GmbH, C20-B: Ultrasonic Welding Machine for Battery Applications, Wettenberg, 2018.
[49] Leybold GmbH, RUVAC WA(U) / WS (U): Waelzkolbenpumpen für besseres Vakuum, Köln, 2018.
[50] L. Ebert, M.A. Roscher, M. Wolter, Schnellere Serienproduktion von Lithium-Ionen-Batterien, ATZ Automobiltech Z 116 (2014).
[51] A. Das, D. Li, D. Williams, D. Greenwood, Joining Technologies for Automotive Battery Systems Manufacturing, WEVJ 9 (2018).
[52] D. Speth, J. Eastman, Laser welding batteries for electric vehicles: Advantages and challenges vs. other techniques, 2012.
[53] D. Walter, V.R. Moldovan, B. Schmieder, New Laser Welding Process For Excellent Bonds: Laser welding in overlap (wobbling) promises
more affordable Li-ion batteries, Reutlingen, 2016.
[54] Accumation GmbH, Battery Washing and Drying Machine, Limburg-Offheim, 2018.
[55] M. Wolter, G. Fauser, C. Bretthauer, M.A. Roscher, End-of-Line Testing and Formation Process in Li-Ion Battery Assembly Lines: 2012 - 9th
International Multi-Conference on Systems, Signals and Devices, IEEE, Chemnitz, 2012.
[56] L. Orozco, W. Liao, I. Analog Devices, Power Efficient Battery Formation/Testing System with Energy Recycling, Norwood, U.S.A., 2015.
[57] M. Toman, R. Cipin, D. Cervinka, P. Vorel, P. Prochazka, Li-Ion Battery Charging Efficiency, ECS Transactions 74 (2016).
[58] Xiamen TOB New Energy Co., Ltd., Battery Automatic Sorting Machine, 2018.