Simulation-based life cycle assessment of secondary materials from recycling of lithium-ion batteries

•Evaluating recycling for EU battery directive compliance.•Limited data hinders impact assessment of secondary materials.•Simulation generates detailed process data for assessment.•Modelled process meets 3/4 recovery targets for 2027.•Optimized process needed for 2031 targets and reduced impacts. Th...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Resources, conservation and recycling conservation and recycling, 2024-03, Vol.202, p.107384, Article 107384
Hauptverfasser: Ali, Abdur-Rahman, Bartie, Neill, Husmann, Jana, Cerdas, Felipe, Schröder, Daniel, Herrmann, Christoph
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:•Evaluating recycling for EU battery directive compliance.•Limited data hinders impact assessment of secondary materials.•Simulation generates detailed process data for assessment.•Modelled process meets 3/4 recovery targets for 2027.•Optimized process needed for 2031 targets and reduced impacts. The EU Battery Regulation is aimed at minimizing negative impact of waste batteries on the environment. Recycling of lithium-ion batteries is one way to reduce those impacts. However, a lack of detailed process-level data is limiting the environmental impact assessment. In this study, the necessary data is generated using process simulation, and is used to estimate the material recovery rates and environmental impacts of a recycling nickel-manganese-cobalt-based battery. We apply and allocate the impacts of recycling to determine secondary battery material carbon footprints. The results were compared with that of primary raw materials based on mass-based and economic value-based allocation. In reference scenario, applying economic value-based allocation resulted in cobalt sulphate and nickel sulphate having 73.5 % and 57.4 % lower carbon footprint than their primary, however, lithium carbonate had a 20.8 % higher footprint. The results indicate the need to improve material recoveries for meeting EU Battery Regulation targets, while minimizing environmental impact.
ISSN:0921-3449
1879-0658
DOI:10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107384