Evaluating environmental impacts and economic performance of remanufacturing electric vehicle lithium-ion batteries

With the proliferation of electric vehicles (EV), large amounts of retired batteries need to be disposed, which poses emerging waste management challenges. Remanufacturing LIBs with materials recycled from used batteries is gaining increasing appreciation. Its environmental and economic benefits are still controversial and merit further examinations. This paper employs a life-cycle model and a process-based cost model to evaluate the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, water consumption, and the related costs of remanufacturing LIBs within the context of China, which is the biggest EV producer. Four types of LIBs, i.e. NCM111, NCM622, NCM811 and NCA, and three different recycling methods, i.e. Pyrometallurgical Recycling (PR), Hydrometallurgical Recycling (HR), and Direct Physical Recycling (DPR) are analyzed. The environmental impacts of remanufacturing LIBs are assessed at both national and provincial levels. Results show that compared with manufacturing LIBs with virgin materials, remanufacturing LIBs can significantly reduce GHG emissions, water consumption, and production costs. Among the three recycling methods, DPR has the biggest potentials for reducing GHG emissions, water consumption, and manufacturing costs with 29.27%–38.15%, 30.07%–41.19%, and 25.61%–36.63% reduction, depending on the different types of LIBs. Regarding battery technologies, remanufacturing NCM111 cell with DPR induces the least negative environmental impacts. Sensitivity analyses show that there are still large profit margins for remanufacturing LIBs with DPR process to bear the used LIB purchase price increase. Potential water-carbon conflicts are demonstrated for developing LIB remanufacturing industry due to different provincial electric power portfolios, which should be considered in future industry planning. [Display omitted] Environmental impacts and economic costs of remanufacturing EV LIBs are evaluatedDirect physical recycling cuts manufacturing cost by 25.6–36.6%Direct physical recycling reduces GHG emission by 29.3–38.2%Direct physical recycling reduces water consumption by 30.1–41.2%Provincial analysis reveals potential water-carbon conflicts in remanufacturing LIBs