Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 60 (2023) 103530

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/seta

Environmental impact assessment of lithium ion battery employing cradle

to grave
Swapnil Bawankar a, Gaurav Dwivedi a, *, Ipseeta Nanda g, Víctor Daniel Jiménez Macedo b,
Sujeet Kesharvani a, *, Kundan Meshram c, Siddharth Jain d, Sachin Mishra e,
Varun Pratap Singh f, Puneet Verma h
a
Energy Centre MANIT Bhopal, India
b
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Michoacan University of Saint Nicholas of Hidalgo, Mexico
c
Department of Civil Engineering Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya, Bilaspur (C.G.), India
d
Department of Mechanical Engineering, UPES Dehradoon, India
e
Department of Electrical Engineering, LPU Jalandhar, India
f
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Petroleum and Energy Studies, India
g
School of Computer Science and Engineering IILM University, 16, Knowledge Park-II, Greater Noida 201306, UP, India
h
School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane 4001, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The purpose of this study is to calculate the characterized, normalized, and weighted factors for the environ­
Life cycle assessment mental impact of a Li-ion battery (NMC811) throughout its life cycle. To achieve this, open LCA software is
Life cycle Stages employed, utilizing data from product environmental footprint category rules, the Ecoinvent database, and the
Li-ion battery
BatPaC database for a comprehensive Cradle to Grave assessment. The findings of the current study that certain
NMC811
processes have significant environmental implications, including climate change (fossil), resource usage (energy
carrier), resource use (minerals and metals), and respiratory inorganic impacts. However, it is noteworthy that
water scarcity contributes to 87% of the overall effect, primarily due to the utilization of acids in the hydro­
metallurgical process. Moreover, the impact categories mentioned above are heavily influenced by the electricity
grid mix employed during both the production and consumption phases. Consequently, increasing the proportion
of clean energy in the electrical grid mix has been identified as an effective strategy for reducing the Life Cycle
Impact Assessment (LCIA) of Li-ion batteries.

Introduction
Electric vehicles (EVs) account for the majority of current and fore­
cast demand, but lithium-ion batteries are also used in consumer de­
vices, essential defense sectors and stationary storage (electric grid).
Around 24 % (emissions from energy) worldwide carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions come from transportation [1]. To compete in the lithium-
based battery industry, it needs a logistics network that can build pro­
lific, ultra-modern EV and grid storage batteries and cut down the costs
roughly 90 % from last 10 years [2]. While silicon nanowires have
shown considerable promise for use in lithium ion batteries for electric
cars, their environmental effect has never been studied. A life cycle
assessment (LCA) must be performed to examine the possible effect of
the product from cradle to grave for a full environmental impact
assessment [3]. On a watt-for-watt basis, life-cycle assessment studies
reveal that organic photovoltaics have the potential to reduce the
environmental impact and decrease the energy and carbon payback
periods compared to traditional silicon during the manufacture of a solar
cell [4].
Lithium-ion battery current status
Ensure raw and refined resource availability, as well as alternative
sources for essential minerals. Collaborate to generate [3] supplies of
critical raw materials for batteries, as well as to enhance the safe and
sustainable manufacturing capacity of critical battery materials

* Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: gdiitr2005@gmail.com (G. Dwivedi), ipseeta.nanda@gmail.com (I. Nanda), sujeetkesharvani@gmail.com (S. Kesharvani), kundan.meshram@
ggu.ac.in (K. Meshram).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2023.103530
Received 11 May 2023; Received in revised form 25 September 2023; Accepted 28 October 2023
Available online 2 November 2023
2213-1388/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S. Bawankar et al.
(lithium, nickel, and cobalt) [4].The major elements whose world
reserve and total manufacturing capacity with world reserves are given
in Figure A1 in Appendix A [5].
Lithium-ion cell recycling not only alleviates material shortage lim­
itations and improves sustainability practices, but it also enables a more
stable and robust local supply chain [6]. EV batteries have an end-of-life
net cost to recycle, with transportation charges, which are currently
categorized as hazardous waste, accounting for more than half of the
end-of-life recycling costs [7].
1 ton of battery-grade lithium can come from 750 tons of brine / 250
tons of Ore / 28 tons of spent lithium- ion batteries and 1 ton of battery-
grade cobalt can come from 300 tons of Ore / (5 to 15) tons of spent
lithium- ion batteries. For successful, production of recycled lithium ion
batteries focus on to utilize the material such as cobalt, lithium, nickel
and graphite [8]. Using recycled materials from spent batteries has po­
tential to decrease cost by 40 %, Energy use by 82 % water use by 77 %
and SOx emissions by 91 % [9]. The number of spent lithium-ion bat­
teries (LIBs) will increase exponentially in the coming decade with the
retirement of electric vehicles (EVs) [10].
Li-ion battery
Li-ion batteries are electrochemical devices that convert chemical
energy into electrical energy. Each battery cell contains two electrodes:
one that is positive (cathode) and one that is negative (anode). An
electrolyte separator layer resides between the two electrodes, enabling
electrons or ions to pass through. When a battery discharges, lithium ion
flows from the negative to the positive electrode; however, when a
battery charges, lithium ion flows from the positive to the negative
electrode[11]. The schematic representation of a lithium-ion battery cell
is as shown in Figure A2 in Appendix A [10].
Lithium Cobalt Oxide (LCO) as well as Lithium Nickel Manganese
Cobalt Oxide (NMC) is the two most frequent kinds of lithium-ion bat­
teries in use today. NMC comes in second with such a market share of 28
% and is mostly used in EV and medical devices.[12] Both NMC and LFP
batteries are often utilised and according to several industrial sources,
NMC batteries have a usual life cycle of 2000 to 2500 cycles (3–4 years),
but LFP batteries have a life cycle of 5000 cycles (7–10 years) [13]. In
the last 3–4 years, NMC batteries have been increasingly popular,
namely in EVs, street lighting and other smaller stationary rechargeable
batteries applications.[14] At the moment, research is focused on an
8:1:1 NMC battery ratio to reduce prices by lowering cobalt’s portion of
the larger battery mix. The quantity of cobalt metal recovered by recy­
cling NMC111 battery can energise three NMC811 batteries with in near
future, recycling can indeed play an important role. Figure A3 in Ap­
pendix A depicts the proportion of important metals used in lithium-ion
batteries [15].
Lifecycle inventory
The lifetime inventory presented in this study is based on primary ­
data given by BatPaC on NMC811-G. The battery cell and battery pack
will be distributed in large quantities. Figure A4 in Appendix A depicts
the mass contribution to the battery cell which depicts the percentage of
different materials product to form given cell. Different types of Li-ion
batteries along with technology, attributes and usage is shown in
Table A1 in Appendix A and contribution of NMC is 29 % used in EV,
power tools and medical devices [9,14]. Akasapu and Hehenberger,
(2023) found similar conclusion that Global Warming Potential (GWP)
and Abiotic Depletion Potential (ADP) are critical factor for environ­
mental impacts [16]. The current findings also reveal that climate
change (fossil) contribute the major environmental impacts during LCA
of lithium ion batteries.
2
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 60 (2023) 103530
Methodology
Life-Cycle assessment
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is collec­
tion of standard describes LCA (ISO 2006b; a). According to Figure B1 in
Appendix B, LCA contain 4 major phases: goal & scope definition, life­
time inventory analysis, life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) and inter­
pretation. The characterisation stage transforms the emissions
associated with the LCI inputs into the impact category indicator, like
CO2-equivalent for climate change. It is achieved with the use of char­
acterization factor, which designate various strength to emission with
lower or higher impact inside a given impacts category. The normal­
isation and weighing procedures are not required by the ISO [17]. These
phases are marked by more uncertainty and subjective values. The
normalisation provides impact to standard value by dividing the stan­
dard impact by the overall impact in the system, obtaining an impact
value per overall. The weighting stage obtained by multiplying those
normalised values by their weighting factors established to assess the
relevance of different effectindicators. It is done to produce a single
aggregated score for product’s environment effect [18]. It includes all
Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) indicators needed by the preceding standards,
as well as the European Commission’s end-of-waste criteria and nor­
malisation and weighting factor. This research compares the life cycle
evaluation of an electric automobile based on lithium-ion battery tech­
nology (BEV) for Europe to an internal combustion engine vehicle
(ICEV) [19].
Product environmental footprint
This PEFCR is utilised in high specific energy battery packs
(rechargeable) for EV. During a specified service life, the function
stated is to deliver electrical current at specified voltage from an on-
board battery with high specific energy for a given service life and is
the principal energy storage for a mobile platform. High specific energy
batteries are intended to store and distribute energy to electrical devices
on their own [20]. The energy losses associated with battery as well as
charger efficiencies throughout charge, discharge and storage charac­
terise the battery’s energy consumption even during usage stage.
Modelling methodology
An attribution Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach was used in this
research, in accordance with the ISO 14040 series of standards (ISO
2006a; b), which offer a systematic framework for performing extensive
LCA investigations. The research attempted to follow the Batteries
Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCR) to the letter,
ensuring that the particular rules for analysing the environmental effect
of batteries were strictly followed, but with required revisions for rele­
vance. The research was carried out with the help of openLCA, a flexible
open-source LCA programme, and data from ecoinvent v.3.8, a large
collection of environmental impact data. Furthermore, specifications
and cost-related data were obtained from BatPaC, a relevant resource,
and were then changed to meet the needs of the study.
Goal
The goal of the research is to assess the EIF of a Li-ion battery
employed in 4 life cycle stages from cradle to grave for NMC811: (Raw
Material acquisition & Production of the main product) cradle to gate,
Use stage and End-of-Life. The second goal was to calculate character­
ized, normalised and weighting factor for EIF. Finally, analyse the LCC
for battery for system total energy storage, the cost of cells ($/kWh) and
pack total mass for NMC811. The life cycle inventory is based on BatPaC.
Figure B2 in Appendix A depicts a cradle to grave LCA that includes life-
cycle stages, from raw material procurement to EOL.
S. Bawankar et al.
Scope
A battery system designed for purposes with projected battery sys­
tem power of 20 % SOC of 360 kW was examined in this study. Battery
storage of total energy storage of 124 kWh. The batteries cell utilised in
the battery pack system have a cycle life of 6 500 cycles at an 80 % DOD,
charging and discharging current of 0.3C, as well as ambient temp. Of
25 ◦ C. It takes 9.65 min to recharge from (15–75) % SOC. Number of
packs manufacture per year is of 1,000,000. No. of parallel cells in a
module (18), Number of parallel cells in a module (2), Number of
modules in a row (6), Number of row of modules / pack (4) and Number
of modules in parallel (1). [21,22,20].
Representative products
The following are the major components of the representative
products: The components of battery cell (built during battery con­
struction stage as well as Safety Management Unit (SMU), are made up
of electronics components [23,24].
• Electronic components such as switches and contactors make up the
Battery Control Unit (BCU).
• The electrical component for battery management, the Battery
Management Unit (BMU).
• Heat Management Systems, often known as thermal management
units (ThMUs),
Figure B3 in Appendix B shows [25]representative product compo­
nent of Li-ion battery.
Functional unit & reference flow
The functional unit (FU) for rechargeable batteries is 1 kWh of total
energy delivered during the battery system’s service life. The energy
losses associated with batteries and efficiency of charger throughout
storage, charge anddischarge determine energy consumption during the
usage stage of battery. This reference flow will be used to calculate all
quantitative input and output data.
Calculations [26]:
Quantity of FU / battery – To find total service of the battery (use-
stage):
Q = Edc × Nc × Acc (1)
Where, Edc is the energy delivery / cycle (kWh / cycle), Nc is the no. of
cycles (no.), Acc is the average capacity / cycle (%), Q is the quantity of
FU (kWh over service life / battery)
Quantity of FU for application service – To find the no. of batteries
needed to complete the application service:
Nbbatt = AS/Q (2)
Where, Nb batt is the no. of batteries, AS is the application service
([kWh], Q is the quantity of FU (kWh over service life / battery)
Reference flow – To find the amount of battery mass required
completing the service:
Rf = Nbbatt × M/AS (3)
Where, Rf is the reference flow ((kg battery/kWh)), Nb batt is the no. of
batteries, M is the mass of battery (Kg), AS is the application service
(kWh).
For a 124 kWh NMC811-G weighing 496 kg and Vehicle Range is
around 300 miles (483 km)’ i.e., 124/483 = 0.2567. Now using 0.2567
kWh/km, assuming 80 % depth of discharge and 200000 km design
service life: equation (3) would yield (1*496 kg) / (200000 km * 0.2567
3
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 60 (2023) 103530
kWh/km) = 0.0097 kg battery/kWh and equation (2) and (3) would
yield 496 kg / (2000 cycles * 0.8 depth of discharge * 124 kWh) = 0.025
kg battery/kWh, so around 2.5 g battery is needed per delivered kWh.
However, maximum service life is 226716 km. Equation (3) then yields
496 kg / (226716 km * 0.2567 kWh/km) = 0.0085 kg battery/kWh.
The vehicle context is realised using data from testing or assumptions
about vehicle weight and electrical use. Calculating effects per kilometre
makes it easier to compare with car emission objectives. The environ­
mental effect statistics are mostly presented as environmental impact
per kilogramme of battery cell and per kilogram of battery.
System boundary
The system boundary for conducting a Lithium-Ion battery Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) spans many stages of its lifespan. This includes raw
material extraction and processing, which involves acquiring materials
such as lithium and cobalt, manufacturing, which involves the produc­
tion of battery components, transportation of materials and batteries,
the use phase, in which the battery powers devices or vehicles, potential
maintenance and replacement, and finally, the end-of-life phase, which
involves recycling or disposal. Auxiliary processes are also included,
such as energy generation for charging electric automobiles. To
completely examine the environmental effect of Lithium-Ion batteries,
the particular limits can be modified based on the scope and objectives
of the research, while allowing for geographical differences and supply
chain complexity.
The Table B1 in Appendix B shows the life cycle phases of Li-ion
battery with description of product data [24].
The system process involved in the LCA stages from cradle to grave
are depicted in Figures B4, B5 and B6 in Appendix B when combine [27]
Figure B4 shows cradle-to-gate system where raw material extraction
and processing, manufacturing of battery cell component, battery cell
assembly and battery assembly combined. Figure B5 shows use stage in
which product transportation and product use product data combined.
Figure B6 shows EOL and recycling in which transport to EOL and
battery recycling product data is utilized. The green cells indicate
product data, the blue cells process data and the orange cells input /
output.
Modelling methodology
GreenDelta created a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) model using the
openLCA programme in 2020, particularly version 1.10.3 of this open-
source LCA modelling tool. They used the Greendelta PEF database to
build the system model for their research, which provides critical data
for evaluating the environmental performance of products and pro­
cesses. GreenDelta used a Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) tech­
nique to calculate the Environmental Impact (EI) of the battery. This
technique was made possible by openLCA, which offered the tools and
data needed to calculate the EI of the battery system. This careful
technique guaranteed that the LCA study was carried out on a well-
established and trustworthy platform, allowing for precise and accu­
rate assessment of the battery’s environmental effect.
Raw material acquisition stages and the production stage
Transport is included both inside and between extracting and the
pre-processing sites. Manufacturing of OEM components include BCU
(Specifically, electrical & electronic components such as switch and
contactor), SMU (i.e., electronics components), BMU (i.e., electro­
niccomponent for battery management), ThMU(i.e.,componentsdirectly
related with the battery for thermal management) and charger. Trans­
port includes components and Raw materials are transported to battery
manufacturing facility [11,28,29]. Production begins when the pro­
ducts arrive at the manufacturing plant & concludes when the final
product is shipped. Production process [30] are shown in Table B2 in
Appendix B:
S. Bawankar et al.
Use stage
The battery’s energy consumption during its use-stage is determined
by the energy loss owing to charger and battery efficiency over the
course of battery’s lifetime. During the use stage energy consumed
related with the battery and charger must always be addressed. Energy
losses related to battery and charger efficiency throughout battery life,
as well as country-specific energy mix, determine the usage stage [12].
Calculation for losses for Use-Stage. Equation (4) and (5) likely pertain to
the calculation of losses during the use-stage of a product’s life cycle in
the context of a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA).
( )( ) teries on the basis of primary data and shows cathode type, system
Vp Ip × Tp
Energy Efficiency(ηE) =
Vc Ic × Tc
= (voltage efficiency)(coulomb efficiency) (4)
Losses = (1 − )(A.S.E.) (5)
Where V, I, T, A.S.E. are Voltage, Current, Time (for change and
Discharge) and Application Service energy.[3132] The coulomb effi­
ciency of lithium ion batteries is about 100 percent. When completely
charged, there are no negative effects and the voltage efficiency is 3.6 V/
(3.75 V) = 96 %, resulting in a 96 percent energy efficiency. The charger
efficiency is considered according to the charger manufacturer’s
specifications.
The End-of-Life (EOL) stage
The End of Life process [33] and their activities are shown in
Table B3 in Appendix B.
The Table B3 gives a complete overview of the Lithium-Ion battery
end-of-life stages, with an emphasis on the dismantling phase, in which
components from the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) assembly
are removed from the battery. The transformation process includes three
key recycling methods: pyrometallurgy, hydrometallurgy, and direct
recycling, with the metallic fraction being the principal product. Addi­
tional actions, such as energy usage and emissions created during
shredding processes, are also shown in the table. A stoichiometric for­
mula is used to properly determine the mass of recycling process flows.
This table gives a quick summary of the main stages and their envi­
ronmental effects for Lithium-Ion batteries.
Distribution stage
In the life cycle of a battery, transportation has a low environmental
impact. Within this life cycle stage, the transportation from the plant to
the ultimate customer (including consumer transit) should be simulated.
The user is referred to as the end client (use phase)[34]. The following
scenario will be utilised for the battery PEF profiles, which will include
all phases of transportation throughout the product life (PEFCR)
Transport from component source to OEM manufacturing (utilisation
ratio 64 %) Trucks go 130 km, trains travel 240 km and ships travel 270
km. From the OEM factory to the end consumer (Use Phase) and
transportation to end of life recycling facility: (utilisation ratio of 64 %)
The intra-continental supply network is 200 km long via vehicle [20].
Procedure for cradle to grave LCA
For the cradle to grave system, the following methods are designed
(Ecoinvent v 0.3.8 in openLCA LCIA and Method EN 15804 + A2):
(1) A framed mass of 1 kg is used as a reference unit. The functional
unit (FU) for rechargeable batteries is 1 kWh of total energy
delivered during the battery system’s service life. Then, a battery
production system is introduced, which includes anode produc­
tion (silicon coated graphite for NMC811), cathode production
(NMC811), battery cell production, battery modulepackaging
production, (high/low voltage system production), integrated
battery interface system production and battery production
4
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 60 (2023) 103530
system. Product system established by integrating all input pro­
cesses and creating a cradle to gate system.
(2) For the Use stage, maintenance, operational energy and opera­
tional water systems were built and a product system.
(3) In the case of EOL (Recycling),
process waste management is eployed for recycling.
(4) BatPaC 4.0 - Technical parameters of Battery NMC811-G and cost
evaluation data were gathered using BatPaC. The cost is calcu­
lated based on a battery production volume of 100,000 units.
Table B4 in Appendix B shows a summary of 13 LCA of Li-ion bat­
boundary and implications.
EOL analysis for NMC811
For NMC of 1 kg of cathode, treatment for hydrometallurgical, using
recovered nickel and cobalt reduces the usage of fossil resources greatly
and recycling NMC active material requires just 15.7 MJ/kg, whereas
raw material synthesis requires 25 MJ/kg. Recycling materials save 9.5
MJ/kg of energy. [35] For a NMC, battery capacity of 1 kWh and
treatment for dismantling, cryogenic shattering LIB recycling emits 3.6
kg CO2 per kWh of battery capacity recycled[36]. NMC of battery ca­
pacity of 1 MJ, treatment for crush, separate, smelt, hydrometallurgy,
for recycling, LFP has the highest energy intensity than NMC and Rely on
[37] for energy recycling values [38].
NMC of 1 kWh battery capacity, treatment for direct physical, pyro &
hydrometallurgical exception of human toxicity, acidification potential
and ozone depletion, the EOL is 10 % of overall effect and the LIB
recycling intensity in terms of CO2 emissions is 27 kgCO2e/ kWh of
recycled storage capacity.[939].
For NMC of 1 kton of battery, treatment for direct physical, pyro &
hydrometallurgical, when optimising reverse logistics, it is critical to
evaluate where transportation emissions occur. The balance among
emissions from disposal vs. transit to recycling and recovery facilities
and for materials recovery, hydrometallurgy is more energy efficient
over pyrometallurgy. Pyrometallurgy produces higher GHGs and air
pollution over hydrometallurgy [40,34].
NMC of 1 battery for treatment for direct physical, pyro & hydro­
metallurgical, large data facilities minimise battery assembly impacts
and recycling, especially with the high-capacity facilities, which could
reduce life cycle impacts. Due to a lack of primary research on recycling
methods, LCA EOL study provides little assistance [41]. For NMC of 1
MW of frequency regulation treatment for Pyrometallurgical, end-of-life
impacts are minor comparing to impacts during the usage phase and
end-of-life impacts tend to be influenced by fossil fuel consumption in
the recycle and recovery activities [42–45]. For NMC, kg of battery cell,
treatment for direct pyrometallurgical, hydrometallurgical, cylindrical
battery cell emit lower greenhouse gases than pouch battery cells and in
case of recycled LFP battery doesn’t really leads in total greenhouse gas
savings [46].
Results
The impact categories with more than 80 % weighted average value
are considered. The cumulative single score displayed. The result is
breakdown like the most significant effect impact factor categories
which are responsible for cradle to grave analysis on open LCA. Also
calculated characterized, normalized and weighting factor for EIF.
Lastly the value of LCC is calculated using BatPaC data.
Cradle to grave analysis
Quantitatively determine the impact score per environment category
and considering the absolute number with normalisation and weighting
per functional unit of 1 kWh, as well as the characterisation (non-toxic).
In all the characterisation there was five most impact categories:
S. Bawankar et al.
resource use (energy), land use, climate change, climate change (fossil)
and ionising radiation (human health). Cradle-to-grave life cycle
assessment model configured for actual EV applications has been
developed for the water-based manufactured lithium nickel manganese
cobalt oxide (NMC)-graphite battery packFor the water-based manu­
factured lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NMC)-graphite battery
pack, a cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment model designed for real EV
applications has been created [47].
Characterisation, total life cycle (non-toxic) NMC811
This account for 98 % of the use stage impact factor. Resource use
(energy) has an f 58 %. NMC811′s Total-life-cycle (non-toxic) is shown
in Fig. 1.
Characterisation, use stage (non-toxic) NMC811
This account for 98.5 % of the use stage impact factor. Climate
Change and Climate Change (Fossil) account for 12 % of the impact
factor on NMC811 usage stage (non-toxic) as shown in Fig. 2.
Normalization, total impact factor (non-toxic) for NMC811
Normalisation relates the microworld of an LCA study to macroworld
in which NMC811 is embedded. It accounts for 88 % of the Impact
Factor (non-toxic). Climate change has 7 % influence on the Normal­
isation (non-toxic) impact factor as shown in Fig. 3.
Weighting, total life cycle (non-toxic) for NMC811
Weighting is an aggregation of the normalization scores to a single
environmental index with the help of weighting factors. Similarly in this
account for 91 % life cycle impact (non-toxic). Climate change has
impact of 32 % on the NMC811 as shown in Fig. 4.
Impact factor categories contribution for NMC811
(1) Climate change, water scarcity, human toxicity (non-cancer),
land use, human toxicity (cancer) and resource use (mineral)
would account for 77 % impact factor.
Fig. 1. Characterised, Total Life Cycle impact factor NMC811.
5
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 60 (2023) 103530
(2) Climate change, water scarcity, land use, resource use (mineral)
and resource use (energy) would all contribute 84 % impact
factor (non-toxic).
(3) Impact factor Categories Contribution (NMC811) for total impact
(excluding toxicity) has significant impact than total impact
(including toxicity) in case of water scarcity, climate change, land
use and resource use (energy) as shown in Fig. 5.
Characterization, life cycle Stages, NMC811 (Product distribution stage is
neglected as transportation has very low environmental impact)
The most relevant life cycle stages with characterization findings per
functional unit 1 kWh with greater than 80 % cumulative contribution in
absolute values indicate that the impact factor climate change (fossil)
accounts for 45 % of raw material acquisition, 26 % of main product
production, 17 % of use stage and 12 % of end-of-life. The resources use
(energy) accounts for 43 % of raw material acquisition, 29 % of main
product production, 18 % of use stage and 10 % of end-of-life. The re­
sources use (minerals and metals) accounts for 65 % of raw material
acquisition and 34 % of end-of-life, while only 1 % of the main product
is produced and the use stage is ignored. Respiratory inorganic accounts
for 66 % of raw material acquisition, 13 % of main product production,
6 % of the use stage and 41 % of end-of-life as shown in Fig. 6.
Most important influence categories from the EIF are: -.
(1) Climate change (fossil):- Raw material acquisition (34 %) (Safety
management unit(13 %), Aluminium ingot mix (8 %)), Produc­
tion of the main product (18 %)- Electricity grid mix (18 %), Use
stage (15 %) – electricity grid mix (15 %) and End of Life (13 %) –
cobalt (9 %).
(2) Resource use (energy):- Raw material acquisition (34 %) – (Safety
management unit(9 %), Aluminium ingot mix (8 %)), Production
of the main product (19 %)- Electricity grid mix (19 %), Use stage
(16 %) – electricity grid mix (16 %) and End of Life (10 %) –
cobalt (6 %), Aluminium ingot mix (4 %).
(3) Resource use (mineral and metals):- Raw material acquisition
(69 %) – (Safety management unit (32 %), copper (37 %)), End of
Life (21 %) – copper cathode (21 %)
S. Bawankar et al.
Fig. 2. Characterisation, Use Stage (non-toxic) NMC811.
Fig. 3. Normalization, Total Impact Factor (non-toxic).
(4) Respiratory inorganic:- Raw material acquisition (43 %)
(LiNiMnCaO) (11 %), Safety management unit (10 %)), Produc­
tion of the main product (6 %)- Electricity grid mix (6 %), Use
stage (5 %) – electricity grid mix (5 %) and End of Life (26 %)
–Nickel (14 %), cobalt (12 %).
LCC analysis
The LCC data analysed and for batteries from B1 to B7 different
batteries having total energy storage and its total mass, the total cost is
evaluated. For different types of NMC811-G, the production volume
being 100,000 packs/ year and as pack total mass (kg) increases, the
total cost of cell ($/kWh) lowers for the same battery system total energy
storage (kWh). The cost of a cell for a battery of 88 kWh and a pack mass
of 343 kg is ₹5,850/kWh, whereas the cost of a cell for a battery of 124
kWh and a pack mass of 496 kg is ₹5,775/kWh as shown in Fig. 7.
From analysis of graph, above 98 kWh battery system total energy
6
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 60 (2023) 103530
storage, the cost of cells ($/kWh) is less than pack total mass for
NMC811.
Discussion
According to the literature research, the most widely utilised
perspective in LIB LCA is the cradle to gate approach, which includes
upstream activities, cell manufacture, battery management system,
thermal systems, packaging as well as cell assembly. Usage phase and
end-of-life are frequently neglected because there is less data on such
stages, which creates larger uncertainty and necessitates additional as­
sumptions. Even market research report for the manufacturing phase is
difficult and to get information is frequently subject to company secrecy.
As a result, many of the evaluated study have focused on secondary
research data or combination of primary and secondary data from
company. Just two research [39,48] relied heavily on market analysts.
Also, the data utilised is largely for minor output because data from
S. Bawankar et al.
Fig. 4. Weighting, Total life cycle (non-toxic).
Fig. 5. Contribution of impact factor categories based on normalized result.
major industries greater than 5 GWh/ year manufacturing is limited
[49]. It has encouraged academics to utilise minor manufacturing data
as well as constraints about scalability to simulate future big scale
output. As a result, the data is fairly ambiguous. Nevertheless, major
manufacturing is developing and rising across the world, as the view of
this, numerous studies predict high efficient manufacturing when the
industry is able to ramp up manufacturing [14] in the future, which
would probably result in material and energy savings. As a result, more
cradle to grave life cycle assessment studies using reliable company data
for major LIB manufacturing are required to understand how this in­
fluences the outcomes.
As it is stage when the majority of input materials are added and
manufacturing techniques are frequently energy intensive, the
manufacturing stage has traditionallyconsidered as a key contributor to
Li-ion battery LCA. The mining of raw materials has asignificant influ­
ence on abiotic depletion. The extraction of raw materials consumes
energy and emits pollutants such as SOx, whereas cell assembly
7
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 60 (2023) 103530
consumes a lot of energy owing to the necessity for a drying room
[36,50]. These processes all have substantial power demands, empha­
sising the relevance of the electrical mix utilised.
Water scarcity is the impact assessment category that contributes the
most to cumulative score, accounting for between 87 % of overall effect,
according to the cradle to grave data. This was mostly owing to the
model’s hydrometallurgical process which uses acid. In actuality, Acid
employed in EOL step will yield a waste treatment product that would be
marketed and utilised for other sectors. This implies that perhaps the
EOL costs should be borne by battery recycling companies and the
companies that will use the waste product as its raw material. To get a
more realistic outcome, future research should incorporate the alloca­
tion of loads and credits induced by EOL recycling.
The cradle to gate evaluation seems heavily reliant on expectations
about how batteries will be utilised and for what purpose. Total energy
efficiency as well as battery longevity are considered in these in­
vestigations. As a result, the use phase is a significant contribution to the
S. Bawankar et al.
Fig. 6. Characterization, life cycle stages nmc811.
Fig. 7. EV Vehicle with NMC811-G Electrode.
lifetime environmental effect. There are two key assumptions in the
cradle to gate assessment: battery charging efficiency and battery
longevity [25]. The energy lost as a result of the battery having to bear
its own weight during transit is, however, minimal. Furthermore, the
use-phase is greatly dependent on the electrical mix utilised.
Conclusion
In this current research, cradle-to-grave analysis was conducted for
an NMC 811 battery employing an open LCA tool.
• In conclusion, the findings of the study highlight several key points
regarding the environmental impact and life cycle analysis of
NMC811. The use stage has a significant influence on resource use
(energy), with the major indicators accounting for 99 % of the
impact. Climate change, particularly climate change (fossil), plays a
notable role in the use stage for NMC811, contributing to 12 % of the
impact factor. Furthermore, the total impact factor has a significant
contribution to climate change (fossil), emphasizing its importance
among the major environmental impact categories.
• Water scarcity emerges as the most critical factor, constituting 87 %
of the overall effect in the cradle-to-grave analysis. This is primarily
attributed to the hydrometallurgical process that employs acid.
8
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 60 (2023) 103530
Failure to address water scarcity adequately could amplify the
impact of climate change (fossil).
• The production stage significantly affects raw material acquisition,
with the main product production accounting for nearly half of it.
The electricity grid mix plays a crucial role in both the production
and use stages, with a total usage of 35 %. End-of-life (EOL) stages
involve the utilization of cobalt and aluminum ingot mix, while
copper contributes to both raw material acquisition and EOL stages.
• Regarding life cycle costing (LCC) analysis using BatPaC, it is
observed that as the total mass of the battery pack increases, the cost
of the cell decreases for NMC811-G. This relationship holds true
when the battery system’s total energy storage surpasses 98 kWh.
• Overall, these findings provide valuable insights into the environ­
mental impact, resource utilization, and cost aspects associated with
NMC811, which can guide future optimization efforts and decision-
making processes.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Swapnil Bawankar: Investigation, Writing – original draft. Gaurav
Dwivedi: Supervision. Ipseeta Nanda: Software. Víctor Daniel
Jiménez Macedo: Validation. Sujeet Kesharvani: Methodology,
Writing – review & editing. Kundan Meshram: Writing – review &
S. Bawankar et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 60 (2023) 103530

editing. Siddharth Jain: Investigation. Sachin Mishra: Conceptuali­ [20] Recharge. The Advanced Rechargeable & Lithium Batteries Association PEFCR -
Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules for High Specific Energy
zation. Varun Pratap Singh: Formal analysis. Puneet Verma: Valida­
Rechargeable Batteries for Mobile Applications Version : H Time of validity : 31
tion, Supervision. December 2020. (http://ec.europa.eu/ 2018:1–98.
[21] Nelson PA, Ahmed S, Gallagher KG, Dees DW. Modeling the Performance and Cost
of Lithium-Ion Batteries for Electric-Drive Vehicles. Third Edition Argonne Natl Lab
Declaration of Competing Interest 2019:1–116.
[22] Dai Q, Kelly CJ, Dunn J, Benavides TP. Update of Bill-of-materials and Cathode
Materials Production for Lithium-ion Batteries in the GREET Model. US Dep.
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Energy 2018.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence [23] Diekmann J, Hanisch C, Froböse L, Schälicke G, Loellhoeffel T, Fölster A-S, et al.
Ecological Recycling of Lithium-Ion Batteries from Electric Vehicles with Focus on
the work reported in this paper.
Mechanical Processes. J Electrochem Soc 2017;164:A6184–91. https://doi.org/
10.1149/2.0271701jes.
Data availability [24] Hanisch C, Diekmann J, Stieger A, Haselrieder W, Kwade A. Recycling of Lithium-
Ion Batteries. Handb Clean Energy Syst 2015:1–24. https://doi.org/10.1002/
9781118991978.hces221.
No data was used for the research described in the article. [25] Hiremath M, Derendorf K, Vogt T. Comparative life cycle assessment of battery
storage systems for stationary applications. Environ Sci Technol 2015;49:4825–33.
https://doi.org/10.1021/es504572q.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
[26] Wongtanachai J, Silamut K, Day NPJ, Dondorp A, Chaisri U. Effects of antimalarial
drugs on movement of Plasmodium falciparum. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi. Health 2012;43.
[27] Tsai SH, Tsou YL, Yang CW, Chen TY, Lee CY. Applications of different nano-sized
org/10.1016/j.seta.2023.103530.
conductive materials in high energy density pouch type lithium ion batteries.
Electrochim Acta 2020:362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2020.137166.
References [28] Pagliaro M, Meneguzzo F. Lithium battery reusing and recycling: A circular
economy insight. Heliyon 2019:5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.
e01866.
[1] Bresser D, Moretti A, Varzi A, Passerini S. The Role of Batteries for the Successful
[29] Zackrisson M. Life cycle assessment of lithium ion battery recycling-The ReLion
Transition to Renewable Energy Sources. Encycl Electrochem, Wiley 2020:1–9.
process 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9783527610426.bard110024.
[30] Dunn JB, Gaines L, Sullivan J, Wang MQ. Impact of recycling on cradle-to-gate
[2] BloombergNEF. Battery Pack Prices Cited Below $100/kWh for the First Time in
energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions of automotive lithium-ion
2020, While Market Average Sits at $137/kWh | BloombergNEF 2022:1–3.
batteries. Environ Sci Technol 2012;46:12704–10. https://doi.org/10.1021/
[3] Li B, Li J, Yuan C. Life Cycle Assessment of Lithium Ion Batteries with Silicon
es302420z.
Nanowire Anode for Electric Vehicles. Proc ISSST 2013;2013:1. https://doi.org/
[31] Rossi F, Parisi ML, Maranghi S, Basosi R, Sinicropi A. Environmental analysis of a
10.6084/m9.figshare.805147.
nano-grid: A Life Cycle Assessment. Sci Total Environ 2020;700:134814. https://
[4] Tsang MP, Sonnemann GW, Bassani DM. Life-cycle assessment of cradle-to-grave
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134814.
opportunities and environmental impacts of organic photovoltaic solar panels
[32] Pellow MA, Ambrose H, Mulvaney D, Betita R, Shaw S. Research gaps in
compared to conventional technologies. Sol Energy Mater Sol Cells 2016;156:
environmental life cycle assessments of lithium ion batteries for grid-scale
37–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2016.04.024.
stationary energy storage systems: End-of-life options and other issues. Sustain
[5] Islam ES, Ahmed S, Rousseau A. Future battery material demand analysis based on
Mater Technol 2020;23:e00120.
u.S. department of energy r&d targets†. World Electr Veh J 2021:12. https://doi.
[33] Ellingsen LAW, Hung CR, Strømman AH. Identifying key assumptions and
org/10.3390/wevj12030090.
differences in life cycle assessment studies of lithium-ion traction batteries with
[6] De Laurentiis V, Secchi M, Bos U, Horn R, Laurent A, Sala S. Soil quality index:
focus on greenhouse gas emissions. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 2017;55:
exploring options for a comprehensive assessment of land use impacts in LCA.
82–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2017.06.028.
J Clean Prod 2019;215:63–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2018.12.238.
[34] Kim HC, Wallington TJ, Arsenault R, Bae C, Ahn S, Lee J. Cradle-to-Gate Emissions
[7] Wang T, Luo H, Fan J, Thapaliya BP, Bai Y, Belharouak I, et al. Flux upcycling of
from a Commercial Electric Vehicle Li-Ion Battery: A Comparative Analysis.
spent NMC 111 to nickel-rich NMC cathodes in reciprocal ternary molten salts.
Environ Sci Technol 2016;50:7715–22. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b00830.
IScience 2022;25:103801. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ISCI.2022.103801.
[35] Zackrisson M, Avellán L, Orlenius J. Life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries
[8] Consortium for Advanced Batteries F. NATIONAL BLUEPRINT FOR LITHIUM
for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles-Critical issues. J Clean Prod 2010;18:1519–29.
BATTERIES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2021.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.06.004.
[9] Dunn JB, Gaines L, Kelly JC, James C, Gallagher KG. The significance of Li-ion
[36] Simon B, Weil M. Analysis of materials and energy flows of different lithium ion
batteries in electric vehicle life-cycle energy and emissions and recycling’s role in
traction batteries. Rev Metall Cah D’Informations Tech 2013;110:65–76. https://
its reduction. Energy Environ Sci 2015;8:158–68. https://doi.org/10.1039/
doi.org/10.1051/metal/2013056.
c4ee03029j.
[37] Zackrisson M, Fransson K, Hildenbrand J, Lampic G, O’Dwyer C. Life cycle
[10] Wang Y, Tang B, Shen M, Wu Y, Qu S, Hu Y, et al. Environmental impact
assessment of lithium-air battery cells. J Clean Prod 2016;135:299–311. https://
assessment of second life and recycling for LiFePO4 power batteries in China.
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.06.104.
J Environ Manage 2022;314:115083. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
[38] Faria R, Marques P, Garcia R, Moura P, Freire F, Delgado J, et al. Primary and
JENVMAN.2022.115083.
secondary use of electric mobility batteries from a life cycle perspective. J Power
[11] Fan E, Li L, Wang Z, Lin J, Huang Y, Yao Y, et al. Sustainable Recycling Technology
Sources 2014;262:169–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.03.092.
for Li-Ion Batteries and Beyond: Challenges and Future Prospects. Chem Rev 2020;
[39] Messagie M, Oliveira L, Rangaraju S, Forner JS, Rivas MH. Environmental
120:7020–63. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.9b00535.
performance of lithium batteries: Life cycle analysis. Elsevier Ltd.; 2015. 10.1016/
[12] King S, Boxall NJ, Bhatt AI. Lithium battery recycling in Australia Current status
B978-1-78242-090-3.00011-0.
and opportunities for developing a new industry A CSIRO Report. 2018.
[40] Oliveira L, Messagie M, Rangaraju S, Sanfelix J, Hernandez Rivas M, Van Mierlo J.
[13] Lithium NMC vs LiFePO4 - How to Choose the Best One for Your Needs - Eco Tree
Key issues of lithium-ion batteries - From resource depletion to environmental
Lithium n.d. https://ecotreelithium.co.uk/news/lithium-nmc-vs-lifepo4/ (accessed
performance indicators. J Clean Prod 2015;108:354–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/
February 2, 2023).
j.jclepro.2015.06.021.
[14] Tolomeo R, De Feo G, Adami R, Osséo LS. Application of life cycle assessment to
[41] Vandepaer L, Cloutier J, Bauer C, Amor B. Integrating Batteries in the Future Swiss
lithium ion batteries in the automotive sector. Sustain 2020:12. https://doi.org/
Electricity Supply System: A Consequential Environmental Assessment. J Ind Ecol
10.3390/su12114628.
2019;23:709–25. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12774.
[15] Jasper FB, Späthe J, Baumann M, Peters JF, Ruhland J, Weil M. Life cycle
[42] Peters JF, Baumann M, Weil M. The Importance of Recyclability for the
assessment (LCA) of a battery home storage system based on primary data. J Clean
Environmental Performance of Battery Systems. Cascade Use Technol 2018;2019:
Prod 2022;366:132899. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2022.132899.
104–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-57886-5_13.
[16] Akasapu U, Hehenberger P. A design process model for battery systems based on
[43] Zhao S, Zhang C, Wang Y. Lithium-ion battery capacity and remaining useful life
existing life cycle assessment results. J Clean Prod 2023;407:137149. https://doi.
prediction using board learning system and long short-term memory neural
org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2023.137149.
network. J Energy Storage 2022:52. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EST.2022.104901.
[17] Rajaeifar MA, Raugei M, Steubing B, Hartwell A, Anderson PA, Heidrich O. Life
[44] Zhang C, Zhao S, Yang Z, Chen Y. A reliable data-driven state-of-health estimation
cycle assessment of lithium-ion battery recycling using pyrometallurgical
model for lithium-ion batteries in electric vehicles. Front Energy Res 2022;10:
technologies. J Ind Ecol 2021. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13157.
1471. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2022.1013800.
[18] Li B, Gao X, Li J, Yuan C. Life cycle environmental impact of high-capacity lithium
[45] Zhang C, Zhao S, He Y. An Integrated Method of the Future Capacity and RUL
ion battery with silicon nanowires anode for electric vehicles. Environ Sci Technol
Prediction for Lithium-Ion Battery Pack. IEEE Trans Veh Technol 2022;71:
2014;48:3047–55. https://doi.org/10.1021/es4037786.
2601–13. https://doi.org/10.1109/TVT.2021.3138959.
[19] Tagliaferri C, Evangelisti S, Acconcia F, Domenech T, Ekins P, Barletta D, et al. Life
[46] Raugei M, Winfield P. Prospective LCA of the production and EoL recycling of a
cycle assessment of future electric and hybrid vehicles: A cradle-to-grave systems
novel type of Li-ion battery for electric vehicles. J Clean Prod 2019;213:926–32.
engineering approach. Chem Eng Res Des , 112 Pp 298-309 2016;112:298–309.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.237.
10.1016/J.CHERD.2016.07.003.

9
S. Bawankar et al.
[47] Shen K, Zhai Q, Gu Y, Wang W, Cao H, Hauschild M, et al. Life cycle assessment of
lithium ion battery from water-based manufacturing for electric vehicles. Resour
Conserv Recycl 2023;198:107152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2023.107152.
[48] Notter DA, Gauch M, Widmer R, Wäger P, Stamp A, Zah R, et al. Erratum:
Contribution of li-ion batteries to the environmental impact of electric vehicles
10
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 60 (2023) 103530
(Environmental Science & Technology (2010) 44 (6550–6556)). Environ Sci
Technol 2010;44:7744. https://doi.org/10.1021/es1029156.
[49] Gaines L, Dai Q, Vaughey JT, Gillard S. Direct recycling R&D at the recell center.
Recycling 2021;6:1–18. https://doi.org/10.3390/recycling6020031.
[50] Dai Q, Kelly JC, Gaines L, Wang M. Life Cycle Analysis of Lithium-Ion Batteries for
Automotive Applications. Batter 2019, Vol 5, Page 48 2019;5:48. 10.3390/
BATTERIES5020048.