Environmental impacts of a stand-alone photovoltaic system in sub-saharan Africa: A case study in Burkina Faso.

This study aims to evaluate and compare the environmental impacts of stand-alone photovoltaic (PV) systems with storage installed in Burkina Faso using the life cycle assessment (LCA). SimaPro 9.4 software, Ecoinvent 3.7 database, and the ReCiPe 2018 (H) median method were used to assess the environmental impacts. The functional unit considered is "1 kWh of electricity produced in Burkina Faso by a stand-alone PV system". Four scenarios combining two variables, battery technology (lead-acid and lithium-ion) and end-of-life management (landfill and recycling), were studied to assess 08 environmental indicators. The results show that production and end-of-life management of batteries and PV modules are the main contributors to the environmental impact, with batteries' impact ranging from 73 to 98 % for lead-acid and 50-68 % for lithium-ion batteries. Compared to landfilling, recycling significantly reduces environmental impacts, achieving reductions of 17-77 % for lead-acid batteries (LABs) and 3-99 % for lithium-ion batteries (LIBs). The comparison between scenarios indicates that the LABs PV system with landfilling generates significantly higher scores across all impact categories than LIBs PV scenarios. Specifically, it shows scores over 10 times higher for human carcinogenic toxicity, 5 times higher for human non-carcinogenic toxicity, and 2 times higher for freshwater ecotoxicity. Despite extending battery lifespan, the sensitivity analysis revealed that landfill PV systems remain the most polluting, while in recycled scenarios, this extension brings them closer to the environmental performance of LIBs PV systems. The use of LIBs in photovoltaic systems is more environmentally friendly than that of LABs, regardless of the end-of-life scenario.

Badza K ，Sawadogo M ，Soro YM 《Heliyon》

Environmental Benefit Assessment of Second-Life Use of Electric Vehicle Lithium-Ion Batteries in Multiple Scenarios Considering Performance Degradation and Economic Value.

Cui J ，Tan Q ，Liu L ，Li J ... -  《-》

Comparative life cycle assessment of LFP and NCM batteries including the secondary use and different recycling technologies.

Lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries and lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide (NCM) batteries are the most widely used power lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) in electric vehicles (EVs) currently. The future trend is to reuse LIBs retired from EVs for other applications, such as energy storage systems (ESS). However, the environmental performance of LIBs during the entire life cycle, from the cradle to the grave, has not been extensively discussed. In this study, life cycle assessment (LCA) was used to quantify and compare the environmental impacts of LFP and NCM batteries. Apart from the phases of production, the first use in EVs, and recycling, the repurposing of retired LIBs and their secondary use in the ESS were also included in the system boundary. Also, the environmental impacts of various recycling processes were evaluated. The LCA results suggested that the NCM battery had better comprehensive environmental performance than the LFP one but shorter service life over the whole life cycle. In China, the first and secondary use phases contributed most to the environmental impacts with electricity mostly generated from fossil fuels. The LIB production phase was relevant to all assessed impact categories and contributed more than 50% to Abiotic Depletion Potential (ADP elements) particularly. The environmental loads could be mitigated through the recovery of metals and other materials. And, hydrometallurgy was recommended for recycling waste LIBs by better environmental advantages than pyrometallurgy and direct physical recycling. Sensitivity analysis revealed that by optimizing the charge-discharge efficiency of LIBs, particularly LFP batteries, all environmental burdens could be considerably decreased. Therefore, improving the electrochemical performance of LIBs and increasing the use proportion of clean energy were crucial to reduce the environmental impacts over their entire life cycle.

Quan J ，Zhao S ，Song D ，Wang T ，He W ，Li G ... -  《-》

Environmental impact assessment of second life and recycling for LiFePO(4) power batteries in China.

The number of spent lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) will increase exponentially in the coming decade with the retirement of electric vehicles (EVs). There is a knowledge gap in assessing the environmental impact of different terminal disposal paths for EV LIBs in China. Here, we take representative lithium iron phosphate (LFP) power batteries as example and carry out a bottom-up life cycle assessment (LCA). The life cycle stages of battery manufacturing, use, second life and battery recycling are considered to conduct a cradle-to-grave environmental impact analysis. To investigate the environmental benefits of end-of-life (EoL) stage for LFP batteries, two EoL management scenarios are considered in this study. The first one combines second life application with battery recycling, and the second recycles the retired batteries directly after EV use. The result shows that the secondary application of retired LFP batteries in energy storage systems (ESSs) can effectively reduce the net environmental impact of LIB life cycle, especially for fossil fuel depletion. When the service life of secondary use is increased from 1 year to 10 years, the environmental benefits of different impact categories will increase by 0.24-4.62 times. For direct recycle scenario, recycling retired LFP batteries can save more than 30% of metal resources. By comparison, we find that recycling lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (NCM) batteries has greater environmental benefits than recycling LFP batteries for all impact categories. When considering the environmental benefits at the EoL stage, most life cycle environmental impact is likely to be offset or even show positive benefits if more than 50% of power batteries can be reused in ESSs after retirement.

Wang Y ，Tang B ，Shen M ，Wu Y ，Qu S ，Hu Y ，Feng Y ... -  《-》

Review of lithium-ion batteries' supply-chain in Europe: Material flow analysis and environmental assessment.

European legislation stated that electric vehicles' sale must increase to 35% of circulating vehicles by 2030, and concern is associated to the batteries' supply chain. This review aims at analysing the impacts (about material flows and CO2 eq emissions) of Lithium-Ion Batteries' (LIBs) recycling at full-scale in Europe in 2030 on the European LIBs' supply-chain. Literature review provided the recycling technologies' (e.g., pyro- and hydrometallurgy) efficiencies, and an inventory of existing LIBs' production and recycling plants in Europe. European production plants exhibit production capacity adequate for the expected 2030 needs. The key critical issues associated to recycling regard pre-treatments and the high costs and environmental impacts of metallurgical processes. Then, according to different LIBs' composition and market shares in 2020, and assuming a 10-year battery lifetime, the Material Flow Analysis (MFA) of the metals embodied in End of Life (EoL) LIBs forecasted in Europe in 2030 was modelled, and the related CO2 eq emissions calculated. In 2030 the European LIBs' recycling structure is expected to receive 664 t of Al, 530 t of Co, 1308 t of Cu, 219 t of Fe, 175 t of Li, 287 t of Mn and 486 t of Ni. Of these, 99% Al, 86% Co, 96% Cu, 88% Mn and 98% Ni will be potentially recovered by pyrometallurgy, and 71% Al, 92% Co, 92% Fe, 96% Li, 88 % Mn and 90% Ni by hydrometallurgy. However, even if the recycling efficiencies of the technologies applied at full-scale are high, the treatment capacity of European recycling plants could supply as recycled metals only 2%-wt of the materials required for European LIBs' production in 2030 (specifically 278 t of Al, 468 t of Co, 531 t of Cu, 114 t of Fe, 95 t of Li, 250 t of Mn and 428 t of Ni). Nevertheless, including recycled metals in the production of new LIBs could cut up 28% of CO2 eq emissions, compared to the use of virgin raw materials, and support the European batteries' value chain.

Bruno M ，Fiore S 《-》