Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Energies 2024, 17, 2544. https://doi.org/10.3390/en17112544 www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Article
Reuse of Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiFePO4) Baeries from a
Life Cycle Assessment Perspective: The Second-Life Case Study
Giuliana Vinci 1, Viorio Carobene Arangia 2, Roberto Ruggieri 1, Marco Savastano 1 and Marco Ruggeri 1,*
1 Department of Management, Sapienza University of Rome, Via del Castro Laurenziano 9, 00161 Rome, Italy;
giuliana.vinci@uniroma1.it (G.V.); roberto.ruggieri@uniroma1.it (R.R.); marco.savastano@uniroma1.it (M.S.)
2 AzzeroCO2, Via Genova 23, 00184 Rome, Italy; viorio.carobenearangia@azzeroco2.it
* Correspondence: m.ruggeri@uniroma1.it
Abstract: As of 2035, the European Union has ratified the obligation to register only zero-emission
cars, including ultra-low-emission vehicles (ULEVs). In this context, electric mobility fits in, which,
however, presents the critical issue of the over-exploitation of critical raw materials (CRMs). An
interesting solution to reduce this burden could be the so-called second life, in which baeries that
are no longer able to guarantee high performance in vehicles are used for other applications that do
not require high performance, such as so-called stationary systems, effectively avoiding new over-
exploitation of resources. In this study, therefore, the environmental impacts of second-life lithium
iron phosphate (LiFePO4) baeries are verified using a life cycle perspective, taking a second life
project as a case study. The results show how, through the second life, GWP could be reduced by ‒
5.06 × 101 kg CO2 eq/kWh, TEC by ‒3.79 × 100 kg 1.4 DCB eq/kWh, HNCT by ‒3.46 × 100 kg 1.4 DCB
eq/kWh, ‒3.88 × 100 m2a crop eq/kWh, and ‒1.12 × 101 kg oil eq/kWh. It is further shown how second
life is potentially preferable to other forms of recycling, such as hydrometallurgical and pyrometal-
lurgical recycling, as it shows lower environmental impacts in all impact categories, with environ-
mental benefits of, for example, ‒1.19 × 101 kg CO2 eq/kWh (compared to hydrometallurgical recy-
cling) and ‒1.50 × 101 kg CO2 eq/kWh (pyrometallurgical recycling), ‒3.33 × 102 kg 1.4 DCB eq/kWh
(hydrometallurgical), and ‒3.26 × 102 kg 1.4 DCB eq/kWh (pyrometallurgical), or ‒3.71 × 100 kg oil
eq/kWh (hydrometallurgical) and ‒4.56 × 100 kg oil eq/kWh (pyrometallurgical). By extending the
service life of spent baeries, it may therefore be possible to extract additional value while minimiz-
ing emissions and the over-exploitation of resources.
Keywords: life cycle assessment; LiFePO4; second life; stationary plant; energy storage
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the transport sector was respon-
sible for about 8.8 GT CO2 eq in 2022, 40% of global CO2 emissions related to the energy
sector [1,2]. Transport sector emissions, which have been growing steadily since the 1990s
(except the COVID-19 period) (Figure 1), contribute significantly to climate change and
its related impacts, such as rising global temperatures, sea-level rise, and extreme weather
events [3]. For this, in March 2023, the European Parliament ratified an obligation for the
European Union to register only zero-emission cars, including ultra-low-emission vehi-
cles (ULEVs) and vehicles with thermal engines as long as they are fueled with climate-
neutral fuels [4]. There could thus be three possible ways forward: biofuels [5], electrofuels
(e-fuels) [6], and electric cars [7].
Citation:
Vinci, G.; Arangia, V.C.;
Ruggieri, R.; Savastano, M.; Ruggeri,
M.
Re-Reuse of Lithium Iron
Phosphate (LiFePO
4) Baeries from a
Life Cycle Assessment
Perspective: The Second
-Life Case
Study.
Energies 2024, 17, 2544.
hps://doi.org/10.3390/en17112544
Academic Editor:
Adalgisa Sinicropi
Received: 19 April 2024
Revised: 19 May 2024
Accepted: 23 May 2024
Published:
24 May 2024
Copyright:
© 2024 by the authors. Li-
censee MDPI, Basel, Swierland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and con-
ditions of the Creative Commons At-
tribution (CC BY) license (hps://cre-
ativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Energies 2024, 17, 2544 2 of 19
Figure 1. Transportation sector emissions [1].
Therefore, each of the three systems has its criticalities. The biofuels on which Italy
has focused were rejected by the European Commission (EU) (based on a rather ideolog-
ical approach), as according to the body, they will always have a very large carbon foot-
print (CF). Although e-fuels are a promising solution for all modes of transport, as they
are chemically the same as fossil hydrocarbons [8], and thus without significant invest-
ment in either new refueling infrastructures or cars, to date, they are not yet available in
roadside petrol stations, and their production is not yet feasible, as they are still very ex-
pensive and very energy-intensive [6]. Although it is reasonable to assume that by 2035,
the production of e-fuels is unlikely to become simultaneously economical, sustainable,
and scalable, car manufacturers are developing business plans well in advance, and most
of them have already announced that the combustion engine will be abandoned well be-
fore 2035, not least because it would be inconvenient for them to invest in two technologies
(electric cars and e-fuels) at the same time, concentrating mostly on the already proven
electrification. Many manufacturers are already moving away from petrol and diesel to
pure electric, often aiming to make the transition well before 2035. This, therefore, will
impose a substantial increase in demand for Lithium-Ion Baeries (LIBs), which will entail
two not-insignificant issues, one upstream, and another downstream, although closely re-
lated. Regarding the former, electric baeries are mostly composed of Critical Raw Mate-
rials (CRMs), i.e., “raw materials (mineral or otherwise) for which there are no viable substitutes
with current technologies, on which most consuming countries make their imports dependent, and
whose supply is dominated by one or a few manufacturers” [9]. They are notoriously character-
ized by a cap on production, declining reserves, rising extraction costs, and heavy depend-
ence on a few countries [10], and are critical to Europe’s green and digital ambitions,
which is why they are of significant economic importance, and their insecurity of supply
may hinder the development and implementation of new technologies [11]. But another
significant challenge facing baeries also relates to the downstream process of their life,
i.e., disposal [12]. In particular, according to the American Chemical Society, the complex
structure of baeries requires manual disassembly and thus high labor costs [13], which
would only make sense in countries where labor costs are low. But recycling also has en-
vironmental costs, including transport, preparation, and high energy consumption for
baery combustion and calcination [14] as well as reagents and water purification [15].
Therefore, due to the objective processing difficulties, recycling LIB baeries can some-
times be inconvenient and costly, which is why, although European legislation tends to
the opposite direction [16], most LIB baeries at the end of their life are discharged into
Energies 2024, 17, 2544 3 of 19
landfills, contaminating the earth [17], exerting a huge environmental impact, and accel-
erating the depletion of mineral reserves [13]. In this context, an interesting and poten-
tially effective solution could be the so-called ‘second life’ [18]. LIBs, after about 10 years
of use in cars, are no longer able to meet the performance requirements of vehicles due to
the normal degradation caused by obsolescence and the various charge and discharge cy-
cles to which they are subjected, heading toward an end-of-life phase. However, the re-
maining capacity and lifetime may still be suitable for other applications that do not re-
quire high performance, such as stationary systems, thus enabling their reuse [19]. Given
that LIB retirement occurs when the effective capacity falls below 70% of the nominal ca-
pacity, this means that the baery, although degraded by use, still has a residual capacity
that could make it suitable for other stationary applications, thus avoiding disposal in
landfills and considering the baeries as secondary raw materials. In this sense, baeries
considered end-of-life are used for a purpose requiring less wear and tear than the one for
which they were put on the market and not as waste.
1.2. Aim of the Study
In light of the reuse potential of lithium-ion baeries in second-life applications, it
might be important to verify their sustainability through a life cycle assessment (LCA)
[20,21]. In the context of LIBs, this assessment could be particularly relevant to investigate
how the need to extract and process limited raw materials could be reduced and to quan-
tify the resource savings achieved through second-life use. But also, to understand how,
by extending the life of LIBs, the emissions associated with their production could be off-
set. Or to assess how promoting second-life applications for LIBs could significantly re-
duce the generation of hazardous waste as these baeries could continue to provide value,
albeit at a reduced performance level. In this sense, comprehensive LCAs can inform pol-
icy decisions and regulations regarding the reuse, recycling, and sourcing of sustainable
baery materials. Therefore, in light of the above, the objective of this research is to verify
through LCA the potential environmental benefits of reusing second-life baeries for sta-
tionary energy storage. To this end, a project carried out by an Italian company (made
anonymous for privacy issues) was chosen as a case study to be launched in 2025. This
project uses electric vehicle baeries as a source of energy through their interconnection
and storage within a stationary facility on an island in Morocco. This system is integrated
with the town’s electrical system to avoid load-shedding events and thus ensure continu-
ity of grid service to the local population in case of instability due to peak demand. This
project could demonstrate how, in line with the principles of Open Innovation, solutions
can be found for end-of-life management of equipment essential for energy transition and
decarbonization, such as baeries. In addition to being a practical example of extending
the life of electric vehicle baeries, this project could show an additional innovative com-
ponent: in effect, when each baery is removed from the electric vehicle, it is placed di-
rectly in the storage system, exactly as it was in the vehicle, without disassembling it into
individual cells before being installed in the storage system, making the whole process
simpler, safer, and cheaper.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Case Study Description
This case study is the result of a collaboration between three companies, one of which
is Nissan (which provided the baeries). The other two are, respectively, a company that
develops storage systems and system integrators and a company that owns a stationary
plant, the purpose of which is to increase the stability of the electric grid by using dis-
carded baeries from Nissan electric cars. The plant involves the use of 68 Nissan baer-
ies, including 38 decommissioned and 30 new ones. The facility has a maximum capacity
of 5 MW and a maximum stored energy of 1.9 MWh, and in the event of a power plant
disconnection from the grid, the storage facility can supply power to the city grid for 15
Energies 2024, 17, 2544 4 of 19
min, enough time to restart the grid without interruption to the end user. This case study
was chosen mainly for two reasons:
1. It could be a useful and representative example of sustainable power generation and
circular economy. In fact, since through this project, it was possible to reuse materials
at the end of their life, create value in a sustainable way as well as increase the relia-
bility of the entire power grid, it could not represent just a pilot project for the future,
but also a real expression of circular economy in all its forms, and therefore worthy
of aention.
2. The availability of information, accessibility of data, and cooperation of the company
allowed the study to be conducted in an acceptable time frame.
This case study may offer a chance to assess the environmental performance brought
about by the reuse of electric baeries from a second-life perspective, and this approach
was considered aractive because of its potential for reduced impacts and reduced reli-
ance on critical raw materials. However, it is important to note that while this case study
could offer insightful information, its selection is not meant to serve as a comprehensive
example of second-life baeries. Furthermore, the case study represents a specific use sys-
tem and is not necessarily representative of all specific uses of second-life baeries glob-
ally.
2.2. Life Cycle Assessment
The main steps of the LCA of this study are based on the ISO 14040:2006 [20] and ISO
14044:2006 [21]. The functional unit (FU) and methodological steps are summarized in
Table 1 and detailed in the following paragraphs.
Table 1. Summary of LCA phases.
1st Life
2nd Life
(1) GOAL AND SCOPE DEFINITION
Functional Unit
1 kWh
1 kWh
System boundaries
From cradle to grave
From gate to grave
Life Cycle Phases
Transportation of raw materials, manufacturing, ship-
ping, use
Shipping, use
(2) LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY (LCI)
Data quality
Primary data were obtained through interviews with the company managers, secondary data
from gray literature, and scientific literature
Database
Ecoinvent v3.8
(3) LIFE CYCLE IMPACT ASSESSMENT (LCIA)
Calculation method
Recipe 2016 MidPoint (H)
Impact categories
•
Atmospheric effects:
Global Warming Potential (GWP), Stratospheric Ozone Depletion (SOD),
Ionizing Radiation (IR), Ozone Formation-
Human Health (OFHH), Fine Particulate Maer
Formation (FPMP), Ozone Formation-
Terrestrial Ecotoxicity (OFTE), Terrestrial Acidification
(TAP)
•
Eutrophication: Freshwater Eutrophication (FEP) and Marine Eutrophication (MEP)
•
Toxicity:
Terrestrial Ecotoxicity (TEC), Freshwater Ecotoxicity (FEC), Marine Ecotoxicity
(MEC), Human Carcinogenic Toxicity (HCT), Human Non-Carcinogenic Toxicity (HNCT)
•
Abiotic Resources: Land Use (LU), Mineral Resource Scarcity (MRS),
Fossil Resource Scarcity
(FRS), and Water Consumption (WC)
Software
Simapro 9.5.
Energies 2024, 17, 2544 5 of 19
2.2.1. Goal and Scope Definition
The goal of this LCA is to verify the environmental impacts of a reused second-life
baery within the stationary facility, compared to a first-life baery, to understand the
environmental benefits of second life. The study could be useful for companies, stakehold-
ers, and the wider public from a corporate social responsibility perspective, as it could
provide insights into the role of storage in a global economic context with a particular
focus on second life to guide business decisions toward conscious choices. The estimated
useful life of a first-life baery is around fifteen years, while second-life baeries have a
useful life of around five years [22]. The analysis was conducted using a cradle-to-grave
approach, i.e., undergoing all phases of the baery life cycle, not considering the installa-
tion phase due to the lack of some data. A lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4) baery was
considered the component of one of the electrodes, unlike most baeries in mobile phones,
laptops, and electric cars, where these electrodes consist of a mixture of lithium–cobalt.
The inventory data, shown in Tables S1 and S2, refer to 1 single lithium iron phosphate
baery from a Nissan Leaf, the production and assembly of which takes place in China.
Then, as a functional unit, the data were normalized to 1 kWh of energy, consistent with
other authors, such as Philippot et al. (2022) [23] and Kotak et al. (2021) [24], who state
how 1 kWh should be the FU that should be used in all LCAs if comprehensive compari-
sons are to be expected, and finally, Porzio and Scown (2021) [25], who recommend, for
the future comparability, standardizing the usage of kg of baery mass as a functional
unit in LCAs to 1 kWh of baery capacity. The choice of 1 kWh as FU is also aligned with
the Advanced Researchable and Lithium Baeries Association [26]. The main differences
between first and second-life baeries are related to two factors:
i. In the context of second life, the production phase is excluded, specifically on the
assumption that the baeries are already on the market and have a different initial
use than that which will be carried out within the stationary plant.
ii. The transport phase will also be different, as the baeries will no longer be acquired
from the initial manufacturer (China) but purchased on the European market.
2.2.2. Life Cycle Inventory
The data used within this study are primary and were collected following several
meetings with the company’s managers, thanks to the collaboration with Nissan, who
provided all available information for the inventory. Then, correspondence was main-
tained by e-mail with the companies involved to discuss and establish the most relevant
processes. In contrast, the background data derives from the integrated Ecoinvent 3.5 da-
tabase [27] and the SimaPro 9.5 software [28]. Then, the utilization phase can be divided
into two parts. The first life involves the baery being used in electric vehicles, while the
second life involves the baery being withdrawn and used within a stationary installation.
As for the transport data, a meticulous and rigorous analysis of the suppliers was con-
ducted to trace the path taken by the CRMs before the baery leaves the production plant.
The various steps are detailed in the following subsections.
(1) Production
LiFePO4 baery is manufactured in China and produced by Contemporary Amperex
Technology Co. Limited (CATL), Ningde, China, a company that produces lithium-ion
baeries for energy storage systems and electric vehicles, whose production plant is in the
city of Ningde (Fujian). In 2021, with a share of 32.6% globally and 52% domestically [29],
CATL was the world’s leading baery manufacturer, from which Nissan also sources its
baeries. The baery cell is made up of five macro-components (anode, cathode, electro-
lyte, separator, and cell container), each, in turn, made up of a certain type of material
expressed in kg (Table S1). The total weight of the baery is approximately 610 kg (for a
capacity of 110 kWh), of which a significant portion is represented by raw materials (Table
S1) that, according to the latest update and summary carried out in March 2023 by the
European Union [30] are considered critical: Lithium, Graphite, Copper, Bauxite (for
Energies 2024, 17, 2544 6 of 19
aluminum production), Phosphate Rocks (for phosphate synthesis), and Coal Coke (for
steel production). Regarding lithium, although it mainly comes from the ‘Lithium Trian-
gle’ (Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia) (70% of global reserves) and Australia [31], China pos-
sesses most of the world’s refining capacity and is also the first importer and consumer of
lithium worldwide, as well as a large producer of lithium carbonate and lithium hydrox-
ide, mostly from ore concentrates (spodumene), imported from Australia [32–34]. There-
fore, it was assumed that China sources from Australia. Before arriving at the CATL facil-
ity, where the baery parts are assembled, the lithium, sourced from Australia, undergoes
a long refining route. Specifically, it travels from Australia to the port of Shanghai (6145
km as the crow flies) via cargo ships. From there, it is shipped and processed by other
Chinese suppliers. In particular, it was assumed that the production of electrodes and
other materials was carried out by Zhangjiagang Guotai Huarong New Chemical Materi-
als Co., Suzhou, China, the leading electrode producer in China and one of the top three
suppliers of electrolytes for lithium baeries in the world [35], traveling a further 170 km
(from the port of Shanghai to the Zhangjiagang Guotai Huarong facility) and 845 km (from
the Zhangjiagang Guotai Huarong facility to the CATL plant) in both cases by truck, for a
total journey of 6160 km. Regarding Bauxite for aluminum production, it comes mainly
from Malaysia, Guinea, and Australia [30,33], which possess nearly 65% of global re-
sources, while Alumina comes mainly from China, which accounts for 47% of global pro-
duction, making it the first Aluminum producer worldwide (52% of the global market)
[30]. Therefore, it was assumed that China exports Bauxite from Malaysia, a choice moti-
vated by both cost and proximity factors, while Alumina is produced domestically. To
date, research on CATL’s major suppliers [36], also considering its and their ESGs, shows
how it sources aluminum from Jiangsu Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock, Xuzhou,
China [37], assuming how the laer, in turn, sources Bauxite from Malaysia. Therefore,
the alumina component of the baery travels at least 6038 km, including about 5000 km
via cargo ship from Malaysia to the port of Shanghai [38], the closest to the Jiangsu
Dingsheng New Materials Joint-Stock site and to which it travels 209 km via truck, and
then travels another 829 km via truck from Jiangsu Dingsheng Chemical Co., Ltd., Zhen-
jiang, China, to the CATL facility. Data on alumina production are not known. Regarding
phosphate rock, it is the main anthropogenic source of phosphorus, and the main pro-
ducer is China with 87% of the world’s production [39], most of whose production capac-
ity is used internally. Therefore, it is assumed that China produced the entire amount
needed for baery production internally. However, it is not known from which supplier
CATL sources phosphate. For Natural Graphite, China is the world’s largest producer and
exporter, along with Australia, as well as the leading producer of coking coal (precursor
to Graphite) globally [30]. CATL for artificial graphite anode materials mainly sources
from Jiangxi Zichen, a wholly owned subsidiary of Putailai, a leading company in lithium
baery anode materials, whose distance to CATL’s production site is about 825 km, trav-
eled via truck. Regarding Copper, although the main producers are Chile and the Demo-
cratic Republic of Congo, China still has a good mining capacity [33], and thus domestic
production was considered.
Specifically, it was assumed that CATL for copper has a partnership with Guangdong
Jiayuan Technology, Meizhou, China, [40], the world’s leading global copper supplier,
whose distance to CATL’s production site is 571 km traveled by truck. It is important to
note that China’s specific sources of copper can vary over time and depend on factors such
as market conditions, trade agreements, and domestic production capacity. Therefore,
there is no single copper quarry exclusively related to baery production in China, espe-
cially Guangdong, which is why the transportation phase from quarry to site has been
excluded. For Dimethyl Carbonate and Ethylene carbonate currently no data were found
available about their specific origin, which is why it was assumed that they come from
Shandong Shida Shenghua Chemical Group Co., Dongying, China, the first player in
China and the third globally in the dimethyl carbonate and basic organic chemical markets
(ethylene carbonate, ethyl methyl carbonate, propylene carbonate, lithium
Energies 2024, 17, 2544 7 of 19
hexafluorophosphate, and special additives for electrolytes) [41], whose distance is 1481
km, traveled via truck. For Polyolefin, Synthetic rubber, Glass fiber, and Silicon, source
data could not be found. For transportation calculation, TKM (Tonne-Km) was used as the
unit of measurement, based on Equation (1).
TKM =∑(∅ ×
1000) (1
)
The following variables are used:
∅i Is the distance in km as the crow flies of commodity i from place x to place y.
δ Is the weight in kg of the material being transported.
In LCA studies, it could be difficult to find transportation data, given the obvious
complexity of supply chains and the complete route that raw materials take. For this rea-
son, it is important to clarify some of the limitations of this study, both concerning the
source of the data and the various modes of transportation, which led to making some
assumptions. First, about the source of transportation data, within this study, the various
routes, as well as all transportation data, as they are not always available for all inputs,
were inferred from websites and gray literature searches, such as CATL providers and
their ESGs. However, the documentary value of the gray literature used remains enor-
mous, if for no other reason than the indications it provides about the presence of a given
phenomenon. Thus, considering the objective difficulty of finding some route data, some-
times not collected, the issues are most likely underestimated. However, this choice is still
consistent with the objective of this research, which is not so much to quantify emissions
punctually but based on the available data to shed light on the long supply chain of bat-
teries and the long distance that CRMs for baeries production must travel, thus framing
the whole long system behind their production and emphasizing the importance and en-
vironmental impact of transportation. As for the transportation of various commodities
within China, however, a truck mode of transportation was chosen to be considered
within this study. This choice is primarily motivated by the fact that, as said by a recent
report by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), although railways
have been the leader in China’s freight transportation system for years, trucks currently
account for about 50% of freight activity and nearly 80% of freight tonnage in 2019) [42].
Recently, however, the Chinese government has accelerated the expansion of the rail net-
work, investing about CNY 3.5 trillion [43], growing rail freight at an annual rate of +6.9%
between 2015 and 2019, yet still accounting for 9.5% of total freight transport in China [43].
Lastly, it is important to remember that while China’s baery industry is multifaceted and
generally relies on a diverse network of suppliers of electrolytic materials, cathodes, and
other essential components, for the scope of this study and due to data availability con-
straints, in our calculations, for each material, it has been assumed how CATL sourced
from a single supplier per material. It is essential to recognize that, in reality, baery pro-
duction in China involves a multitude of suppliers and a much more complex supply
chain, but to move backward punctually through the entire supply chain and identify each
supplier is not reasonably feasible. The manufacturing phase was also excluded for the
second life process.
(2) Shipping
LiFePO4 baeries belong to IATA*DGR9 class and UN Category 9 and are therefore
considered dangerous goods if transported by air because if exposed to certain uncon-
trolled environmental conditions or handled incorrectly during transportation, they be-
come thermally and electrically unstable, which is why they may ignite [11]. Therefore,
once production is finished from the Ningde production site, the baery travels via truck
to the port of Shanghai, covering about 700 km, from where it is shipped by cargo ships
to the ports of Genoa, Livorno, or Cagliari (Italy), a distance of 9000–13,000 km. The ships
reach European ports in about 35–40 days from the date of departure. Finally, the baeries
are delivered to Morocco, again via cargo ship, for a distance of 1340 km. In all cases, the
Energies 2024, 17, 2544 8 of 19
distance was calculated as the crow flies, considering Google Maps coordinates, mainly
because of the difficulty in finding accurate data on the route taken by the trucks and
ships. In the case of the second life process, transportation is calculated only for the final
stage, thus, from Italy to Morocco.
(3) Installation
Once it arrives at the stationary site, the baery is installed inside, for the construction
of which 3.5 mW is needed: 19.5 m2 of soil, 7.8 m3 of concrete, and 550 kg of steel for 180
days. Energy, water, and fuel are unknown. Therefore, despite being referred to as a mat-
ter of completeness, this phase was not considered in this research due to the unavailabil-
ity of some data as well as the reduced environmental contribution caused by the multi-
year useful life and depreciation of capital assets [44,45].
(4) Use
The fourth step relates to use and maintenance over the lifetime of the baeries. The
number of cycles a single baery can perform over its lifetime was calculated and esti-
mated, considering just one charge and discharge cycle per day. The Baery Energy Stor-
age System (BESS) round-trip efficiency of 85% represents the percentage of stored elec-
tricity that is then recovered (Table 2).
Table 2. Main characteristics of LiFePO4 baery during the use phase.
Characteristics
Amount
Unit
Lifetime
15
years
Cycle per lifetime
5475
n cycles
BEES installed power
20
MW
BEES installed energy capacity
40
MWh
BEES round-trip efficiency
85
%
BESS one way efficiency
92
%
Depth of discharge
80
%
Delivered energy during the lifetime
161,526
MWh
Electricity losses (discharge)
13,674
Electricity losses (charge)
14,831
Electricity losses (total)
28,505
The less energy lost during storage, the higher the round-trip efficiency. Depth of
discharge is intended to tell baery users how much energy they can safely use without
compromising baery life. For example, considering a baery with a depth of discharge
of 80% means that only 80% of the total rated capacity of the baery can be used. Or,
considering a baery with a capacity of 500 ampere-hours, this means that there will only
be 400 ampere-hours with which to work at a depth of discharge of 80%. Delivered energy
during lifetime represents the maximum amount of energy deliverable during the esti-
mated 15-year lifetime of 161,526 MWh. The last two items related to electricity losses
represent the energy lost during the discharge and charge of the baery.
2.2.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment
To ensure the credibility of the findings of this research, the ReCiPe 2016 MidPoint
(I) methodology (I indicate the short-term individualist perspective, according to an opti-
mistic view that technology can avoid many problems in the future) was followed for this
case study. SimaPro 9.5 software was used [29], and the 18 impact categories were
grouped into four macro areas.
1. Atmospheric Effects: Global Warming Potential (GWP), Stratospheric Ozone Deple-
tion (SOD), Ionizing radiation (IR), Ozone Formation-Human Health (OFHH), Fine
Energies 2024, 17, 2544 9 of 19
Particulate Maer Formation (FPMP), Ozone formation-Terrestrial ecosystems
(OFTE), and Terrestrial acidification Potential (TAP).
2. Eutrophication: Freshwater Eutrophication Potential (FEP) and Marine Eutrophica-
tion Potential (MEP).
3. Toxicity: Terrestrial Ecotoxicity (TEC), Freshwater Ecotoxicity (FEC), Marine Ecotox-
icity (MEC), Human Carcinogenic Toxicity (HCT) and Human Non-Carcinogenic
Toxicity (HNCT).
4. Abiotic Resources: Land Use (LU), Mineral Resources Scarcity (MRS), Fossil Re-
sources Scarcity (FRS) and Water Consumption (WC).
In selecting impact categories, several variables, such as stakeholder interests, scien-
tific importance, and environmental context, were considered. Having eighteen impact
categories [46] (compared to 16 in the ILCD 2011 Midpoint, 15 in the IMPACT 2002 +, 11
in the CML-IA Baseline, and 9 in the TRACI), the ReCiPe 2016 MidPoint (I) was preferred
over other calculation methods such as the ILCD 2011 [47], CML 2001 [48] or TRACI [49]
because it can provide more detailed, accurate, and comprehensive results on the envi-
ronmental impacts of a product or process.
2.3. Scenario Analysis
After that, the second-life process was compared with two additional end-of-life pos-
sibilities for baeries, thus constructing two alternative scenarios, considering the two
currently best-known industrialized recycling processes [50], namely pyrometallurgical
recycling [13] (Scenario A) and hydrometallurgical recycling [51] (Scenario B) (Figure 2).
Of the two, the currently most scalable process is pyrometallurgical recycling, which in-
volves melting the baery in a system at high temperatures (1600–1700 °C) to obtain pu-
rified metal alloys [51–53]. Hydrometallurgical recycling, on the other hand, mainly in-
volves the leaching of cathode material from the dismantling and separation stage
through the use of aqueous solutions to dissolve precious metals [51–53]. Essentially, the
goal of this scenario analysis is to show the possible benefits of reuse (thus giving spent
baeries a second use to extend their service life) rather than recycling (with the precious
materials present being recycled and fed back into the value chain). Data on the environ-
mental impacts of the process of extracting precious metals by pyro and hydrometallurgy,
referring to 1 kWh of rated capacity, come from Kallitsis et al. (2022) [54].
Energies 2024, 17, 2544 10 of 19
Figure 2. Overview of the two recycling processes considered [52,53].
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Life Cycle Assessment
Regarding the first-life process, the LCA results are shown in Table 3. The most sig-
nificant impacts are aributable to, for example, GWP, TEC, HNCT, LU, MRS, and FRS.
Specifically, about 5.14 × 101 kg CO2 eq/kWh, 3.86 × 100 kg 1.4 DCB eq/kWh, 3.48 × 100 kg
1.4 DCB eq/kWh, 3.89 × 100 m2a crop eq/kWh, 1.52 × 100 kg Cu eq/kWh, and 1.14 × 101 kg
oil eq/kWh. The largest impacts are mainly aributable to the module container, which,
in 11 impact categories, appears to have the largest weight in percentage terms (e.g., 90%
for HNCT, 43% for MRS, 31% for MEC, 31% for FEP, 24% for LU, 23% for SOD, 21% for
OFHH, FPMP, and OFTE, and 20% for TAP). This is mainly due to impacts related to
aluminum, steel, and copper production. In particular, it is estimated that steel produc-
tion, which generates globally about 145 billion tons of wastewater per year (19 tons/per
capita) [55], generates emissions of arsenic, mercury lead, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-di-
oxins, cyanide, polychlorinated dibenzofurans, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
classified as polyhalogenated aromatic hydrocarbons (PHAHs) and is thus responsible for
human toxicity and poisoning and ecosystem toxicity.
Energies 2024, 17, 2544 11 of 19
Table 3. Life cycle impact assessment results.
Component Anode
Battery Con-
tainer
Cathode Cell Container
Cooling Sys-
tem
Electrolyte
Module Con-
tainer
Separator Transportation
Total
Categories/Unit
Value
%
Value
%
Value
%
Value
%
Value
%
Value
%
Value
%
Value
%
Value
%
Value
%
Atmospheric
GWP
kg CO
2
eq
5.65 × 10
0
11%
1.49 × 10
0
3%
9.49 × 10
0
18%
1.27 × 10
1
25%
2.93 × 10
0
6%
6.20 × 10
0
12%
8.94 × 10
0
17%
4.04 × 10
‒1
1%
3.60 × 10
0
7%
5.14 × 10
1
100%
SOD
kg CFC11 eq
2.24 × 10
‒6
18%
3.06 × 10
‒7
3%
1.67 × 10
‒6
14%
2.15 × 10
‒6
18%
7.24 × 10
‒7
6%
1.65 × 10
‒6
14%
2.84 × 10
‒6
23%
3.92 × 10
‒8
1%
5.47 × 10
‒7
4%
1.22 × 10
‒5
100%
IR
kBq Co-60 eq
5.97 × 10
‒2
35%
2.97 × 10
‒3
2%
1.91 × 10
‒2
11%
2.16 × 10
‒2
13%
7.75 × 10
‒3
5%
3.04 × 10
‒2
18%
2.30 × 10
‒2
13%
5.39 × 10
‒4
1%
6.03 × 10
‒3
4%
1.71 × 10
‒1
100%
OFHH
kg NOx eq
1.91 × 10
‒2
12%
4.17 × 10
‒3
3%
2.27 × 10
‒2
14%
3.15 × 10
‒2
19%
1.17 × 10
‒2
7%
1.39 × 10
‒2
8%
3.50 × 10
‒2
21%
6.18 × 10
‒4
1%
2.69 × 10
‒2
16%
1.66 × 10
‒1
100%
FPMP
kg PM
2
.
5
eq
5.33 × 10
‒3
12%
1.06 × 10
‒3
3%
5.78 × 10
‒3
14%
7.37 × 10
‒3
19%
2.04 × 10
‒3
7%
2.57 × 10
‒3
8%
9.70 × 10
‒3
21%
9.34 × 10
‒5
1%
9.82 × 10
‒5
16%
3.40 × 10
‒2
100%
OFTE
kg NOx eq
1.92 × 10
‒2
12%
4.18 × 10
‒3
3%
2.27 × 10
‒2
14%
3.15 × 10
‒2
19%
1.17 × 10
‒2
7%
1.40 × 10
‒2
8%
3.51 × 10
‒2
21%
6.20 × 10
‒4
1%
2.70 × 10
‒2
16%
1.66 × 10
‒1
100%
TAP
kg SO
2
eq
3.84 × 10
‒2
15%
6.52 × 10
‒3
3%
3.97 × 10
‒2
16%
5.09 × 10
‒2
20%
1.52 × 10
‒2
6%
3.38 × 10
‒2
13%
5.17 × 10
‒2
20%
8.44 × 10
‒4
1%
1.85 × 10
‒2
7%
2.55 × 10
‒1
100%
Eutrophication
FEP
kg P eq
5.20 × 10
‒4
19%
7.36 × 10
‒5
3%
3.45 × 10
‒4
13%
4.30 × 10
‒4
16%
1.36 × 10
‒4
5%
2.93 × 10
‒4
11%
8.53 × 10
‒4
31%
7.86 × 10
‒6
1%
6.13 × 10
‒5
2%
2.72 × 10
‒3
100%
MEP
kg N eq
2.16 × 10
‒4
20%
2.04 × 10
‒5
2%
7.64 × 10
‒5
7%
9.15 × 10
‒5
9%
2.57 × 10
‒5
2%
4.33 × 10
‒4
40%
2.08 × 10
‒4
19%
1.46 × 10
‒6
1%
1.14 × 10
‒6
1%
1.07 × 10
‒3
100%
Toxicity
TEC
kg 1,4-DCB
5.36 × 10
‒1
14%
7.70 × 10
‒2
2%
4.57 × 10
‒1
12%
5.80 × 10
‒1
15%
1.87 × 10
‒1
5%
1.19 × 10
0
31%
6.00 × 10
‒1
16%
7.14 × 10
‒3
1%
2.32 × 10
‒1
6%
3.86 × 10
0
100%
FEC
2.12 × 10
‒4
8%
9.20 × 10
‒5
3%
4.79 × 10
‒4
18%
6.18 × 10
‒4
23%
1.71 × 10
‒4
6%
3.03 × 10
‒4
11%
7.94 × 10
‒4
29%
4.35 × 10
‒6
1%
2.37 × 10
‒5
1%
2.70 × 10
‒3
100%
MEC
7.17 × 10
‒4
16%
1.33 × 10
‒4
3%
6.70 × 10
‒4
15%
8.55 × 10
‒4
19%
2.49 × 10
‒4
6%
2.98 × 10
‒4
7%
1.37 × 10
‒3
31%
6.08 × 10
‒6
1%
9.87 × 10
‒5
2%
4.40 × 10
‒3
100%
HCT
2.13 × 10
‒3
16%
2.47 × 10
‒4
2%
1.46 × 10
‒3
11%
2.05 × 10
‒3
16%
1.05 × 10
‒3
8%
1.66 × 10
‒3
13%
1.55 × 10
‒3
12%
2.16 × 10
‒5
1%
2.75 × 10
‒3
21%
1.29 × 10
‒2
100%
HNCT
5.65 × 10
‒2
2%
1.22 × 10
‒2
4%
1.88 × 10
‒2
1%
2.13 × 10
‒2
1%
1.28 × 10
‒2
0%
4.97 × 10
‒2
1%
3.14 × 10
0
90%
9.58 × 10
‒4
1%
5.44 × 10
‒2
2%
3.48 × 10
0
100%
Abiotic resources
LU
m
2
a crop eq
4.71 × 10
‒1
12%
1.11 × 10
‒1
3%
6.77 × 10
‒1
17%
8.23 × 10
‒1
21%
2.31 × 10
‒1
6%
5.92 × 10
‒1
15%
9.51 × 10
‒1
24%
8.28 × 10
‒3
1%
3.00 × 10
‒2
1%
3.89 × 10
0
100%
MRS
kg Cu eq
5.21 × 10
‒1
34%
3.41 × 10
‒2
2%
9.49 × 10
‒2
6%
9.38 × 10
‒2
6%
2.49 × 10
‒2
2%
1.02 × 10
‒1
7%
6.51 × 10
‒1
43%
4.34 × 10
‒4
1%
3.40 × 10
‒4
1%
1.52 × 10
0
100%
FRS
kg oil eq
1.67 × 10
0
15%
2.88 × 10
‒1
3%
1.84 × 10
0
16%
2.41 × 10
0
21%
7.86 × 10
‒1
7%
1.68 × 10
0
15%
1.79 × 10
0
16%
2.26 × 10
‒1
1%
7.28 × 10
‒1
6%
1.14 × 10
1
100%
WC
m
3
3.09 × 10
‒1
42%
1.15 × 10
‒2
2%
8.13 × 10
‒2
11%
7.16 × 10
‒2
10%
4.33 × 10
‒2
6%
9.11 × 10
‒2
12%
1.21 × 10
‒1
16%
3.25 × 10
‒3
1%
5.34 × 10
‒4
0%
7.32 × 10
‒1
100%
Energies 2024, 17, 2544 12 of 19
It should also be mentioned that China’s steel industry, which accounts for nearly
50% of the world’s total crude steel supply, is inefficient because most of China’s large-
and medium-sized steel mills were born in the 1980s, and thus the efficiency of their uti-
lization is relatively low because of obsolete technologies [56]. However, since China is
the largest producer of almost all kinds of basic consumer and industrial goods, as the
most influential country, it should instead take responsibility for further improving the
utilization efficiency and management level of its processing industries. But steel produc-
tion is also related to the expansion of mines and the expansion of plantations for coal
production, which generate a vast change in land use [57]. Therefore, the major impacts
could be explained, for example, by this motivation. On the other hand, as far as GWP is
concerned, a large part of the impacts are due to the production of aluminum for the cell
container since the extraction of bauxite, and its transformation into aluminum, in addi-
tion to devastating vast areas of ancient forests, relying on powerful hydroelectric dams
that often flood the lands of indigenous communities, is energy intensive (it is estimated
that the production of one ton of aluminum requires 15 MWh of electricity, equal to that
used by a family of two in five years) [58]. Also of no small importance are the impacts
related to the long-distance transportation process of the various critical raw materials.
For example, from Table 3, it can be seen that the transportation phase affects most signif-
icantly the atmospheric categories, including GWP and TAP (7% for both), OFHH, FPMP,
OFTE (16% in all three cases), and toxicity category HCT (21%). The uneven geographic
concentration of critical raw materials used in LiFePO4 baery production, such as Lith-
ium, Bauxite, and Phosphate Rock, causes long travel and long supply chains for their
processing and refining. The logistics of CRMs are thus based on a very intricate network
based on long distances, which are then reflected in the overall environmental impacts of,
for example, 3.60 × 100 kg CO2 eq/kWh. It emerges then how the selection of suppliers,
locations, and production processes can have a great influence. In contrast, through a sec-
ond-life reuse pathway, as shown in this case study, emerges how these environmental
impacts could be significantly reduced, resulting in a lower environmental burden in all
18 impact categories (Table 4), since the second-life pathway in the stationary plant only
has to deal with the transport phase from the decommissioning site to Morocco. Impacts
for first life are greater than impacts for second life, averaging 929 times (ranging from a
minimum of 10.66 times for HCT to a maximum of 9157 times for MRS). For example,
GWP could be reduced by –5.06 × 101 kg CO2 eq/kWh, TEC by—3.79 × 100 kg 1.4-DCB
eq/kWh, HNCT by –3.46 × 100 kg 1.4-DCB eq/kWh, ‒3.88 × 100 m2a crop eq/kWh, and ‒1.12
× 101 kg oil eq/kWh. Considering the GWP, the GHG emissions of the reuse scenario are
8.16 × 10‒1 kg CO2 eq/kWh, higher than, for example, the 2.20 × 10‒1 kg CO2 eq/kWh of
Philippot et al. (2022) [23] and the 2.25 × 10‒1 kg CO2 eq/kWh of Ahmadi et al. (2017) [59],
reported on similar second-life applications of LiFePO4 baeries. However, the variability
in results could be aributable to multiple factors, including, for example, the distance
traveled, the means of transportation used as well as the reference electricity mix. Verify-
ing our results and comparing them with those of other studies could be difficult, how-
ever. This is for several reasons, including the lack of agreement in the field of LCA on
how to analyze the environmental impact of baeries and how to report the results, as a
wide variety of system boundaries and different methodological choices are used in LCA
studies [25], but also, for example, because of the different capacities and masses of baery
packs, which inevitably affect FU normalization. However, the results of our study could
still contribute to expanding the body of scientific literature related to LCA assessments
of second-life baeries, and although it may seem obvious, they show that through a reuse
pathway within a stationary facility, environmental impacts can still be reduced com-
pared to first-life baeries.
Energies 2024, 17, 2544 13 of 19
Table 4. Life Cycle impact assessment results: 1st life vs. 2nd life.
Impact Categories
Unit
1st Life
2nd Life
Difference
Atmospheric
Global warming
kg CO
2
eq
5.14 × 10
1
8.16 × 10
‒1
‒5.06 × 10
1
Stratospheric ozone depletion
kg CFC11 eq
1.22 × 10
‒5
2.60 × 10
‒7
‒1.19 × 10
‒5
Ionizing radiation
kBq Co-60 eq
1.71 × 10
‒1
2.92 × 10
‒3
‒1.68 × 10
‒1
Ozone formation, Human health
kg NOx eq
1.66 × 10
‒1
7.69 × 10
‒3
‒1.58 × 10
‒1
Fine particulate maer formation
kg PM
2
.
5
eq
3.40 × 10
‒2
4.45 × 10
‒5
‒3.40 × 10
‒2
Ozone formation, Terrestrial ecosystems
kg NOx eq
1.66 × 10
‒1
7.74 × 10
‒3
‒1.58 × 10
‒1
Terrestrial acidification
kg SO
2
eq
2.55 × 10
‒1
3.75 × 10
‒3
‒2.52 × 10
‒1
Eutrophication
Freshwater eutrophication
kg P eq
2.72 × 10
‒3
3.01 × 10
‒5
‒2.69 × 10
‒3
Marine eutrophication
kg N eq
1.07 × 10
‒3
4.12 × 10
‒7
‒1.07 × 10
‒3
Toxicity
Terrestrial ecotoxicity
kg 1.4 DCB
3.86 × 10
0
6.77 × 10
‒2
‒3.79 × 10
0
Freshwater ecotoxicity
2.70 × 10
‒3
1.12 × 10
‒5
‒2.69 × 10
‒3
Marine ecotoxicity
4.40 × 10
‒3
4.54 × 10
‒5
‒4.35 × 10
‒3
Human carcinogenic toxicity
1.29 × 10
‒2
1.21 × 10
‒3
‒1.17 × 10
‒2
Human non-carcinogenic toxicity
3.48 × 10
0
1.80 × 10
‒2
‒3.46 × 10
0
Abiotic resources
Land use
m
2
a crop eq
3.89 × 10
0
1.03 × 10
‒2
‒3.88 × 10
0
Mineral resource scarcity
kg Cu eq
1.52 × 10
0
1.66 × 10
‒4
‒1.52 × 10
0
Fossil resource scarcity
kg oil eq
1.14 × 10
1
2.54 × 10
‒1
‒1.12 × 10
1
Water consumption
m
3
7.32 × 10
1
2.59 × 10
‒4
‒7.32 × 10
‒1
Indeed, this is consistent with the findings of other authors, including, Ahmadi et al.
(2017) [59]; Ahmati et al. (2014) [60]; Wilson et al. (2021) [61]; and Philippot et al. (2022)
[23], in which lower environmental impacts are shown for second-life baery applications.
Via second-life applications, the material demand per kWh for new baeries could be re-
duced, offseing future demand and decreasing long-term extraction.
3.2. Scenario Analysis
Scenario analysis results, referring to 1 kWh of nominal baery pack capacity, are
shown in Figure 3. It is shown that both processes (Scenario A and Scenario B) show higher
values than the second-life process. Both scenarios exhibit high energy, waste, and reagent
consumption, as also recently noted by Milian et al. (2024) [50], which are then reflected
in the less-than-negligible environmental impacts. In fact, between the two processes, sec-
ond life shows lower environmental impacts in 18 out of 18 impact categories, with envi-
ronmental benefits, for example, of ‒1.19 × 101 kg CO2 eq/kWh (scenario A) and ‒1.50 × 101
kg CO2 eq/kWh (scenario B), ‒3.33 × 102 kg 1.4 DCB eq/kWh (scenario A) and ‒3.26 × 102
kg 1.4 DCB eq/kWh (scenario B) or ‒3.71 × 100 kg oil eq/kWh (scenario A) and ‒4.56 × 100
kg oil eq/kWh (scenario B). Therefore, through these LCA results, it is shown that current
recycling technologies are still far from environmental maturity because of the complexity
of baeries and the variability and chemistry of components and processes used. Our find-
ings are consistent with the relevant scientific literature, including, for example, Milian et
al. (2024) [50]; Dobò et al. (2023) [51]; and Marchese et al. (2024) [62], who show that the
two processes best known to industries are effective but still unsustainable because of
their high environmental impact. In contrast, reusing baeries in stationary plants could
extend baery life before the materials are recycled at the end of the life cycle.
Energies 2024, 17, 2544 14 of 19
Figure 3. Results of the scenario analysis.
Through this, the second-life application could then represent smart management of
used baeries and baery materials to ensure that electric vehicles and their baeries are
more sustainable along a life cycle perspective, helping to address the coming wave of
used baeries [63]. Therefore, a second-life pathway as a stationary facility could be con-
sidered as a more sustainable form of reuse for the recovery of a spent baery that can
support sustainable recycling processes, also consistent with the waste management hier-
archy, which shows that remanufacturing and reuse are preferable to recycling. Indeed,
although there are different methodologies for recovering components and precious met-
als in lithium baeries, some of which have been recently applied and discovered, each
has disadvantages (Table 5).
Table 5. Overview of some LIB recycling technologies.
Tipology
Characteristics
Disadvantages
Ref.
Pyrometallurgical
After being crushed and separated, the graphite and active cath-
ode materials are heat
-treated to eliminate the binders and car-
bon. Then, the remaining constituents undergo burning at
around 1600
°C, yielding an alloy containing CO, Ni, and other
metals. Following that, the other metals are removed from the
lithium carbonate.
Energetic emissions of dioxins,
carbon dioxide, sulfides, and fu-
rans, loss of material
[64
,65]
Energies 2024, 17, 2544 15 of 19
Hydrometallurgical
Rendering agents that precipitate, extract, or adsorb different
metals like Co, Mn, and Ni
are used to dissolve the crushed mat-
ter. In the solution left behind, lithium is still dissolved to create
lithium carbonate by further filtration. Pretreatments along the
hydrometallurgical route include discharging and dismantling. It
uses less energy an
d produces less harmful gasses, allowing for
higher purity than pyrometallurgical.
Strong acids, such as sulfuric
acid, are used, which poses a
problem with the waste gener-
ated because it requires down-
stream treatment
[14]
Bioleaching
Bacteria and fungi are used to produce organic acids that leach
metals. Compared with the traditional hydrometallurgical pro-
cess, acids are replaced with microorganisms, producing lower
environmental impacts and material costs.
extended leaching cycle, slow ki-
netics, low bacterial activity, and
challenging operating conditions
[66]
Ultrasonic treatment
Aluminum is subjected to agitation and ultrasonic washing to ex-
tract all electrode components. Ultrasonic waves could generate
more pressure due to the cavitation effect, which would enable
the dissolution and disintegration of substances that are insoluble
in water.
The
type of polymer binder used
has
a significant impact on the
delamination
process’ efficiency.
[67]
Eutectic Salt
Lithium iodide (LiI) and lithium hydroxide (LiOH) are mixed in a
eutectic mixture for the recovery of spent materials. This combi-
nation melts at temperatures below 200
°C, turning it into a liquid
at comparatively low temperatures while consuming less energy
and resources than conventional methods.
Operational difficulties related to
the non
-uniformity of various
baeries,
[68]
For example, conventional methods such as pyrometallurgical and hydrometallurgi-
cal methods, while having high material recovery rates, involve high costs, toxic and pol-
luting chemical solutions, require high temperatures, and discharge hazardous waste, as
well as need large amounts of energy. Recently, additional approaches have also been
developed, such as bioleaching (which is part of biohydrometallurgy), ultrasonic treat-
ments, and eutectic salt, which, however, still face many challenges, as shown in Table 5,
and are not yet feasible on a commercial scale. Therefore, since there is currently no easy
path for recycling lithium baeries, extending the service life of spent baeries may be
possible to extract additional value. Remanufacturing, although all it does is postpone
recycling, is therefore still the ideal option for spent baeries because it could maximize
their value by minimizing emissions and energy consumption, as well as overuse of re-
sources and critical raw materials, which could play a central role in avoiding a crisis in
their supply.
4. Conclusions
Within this study, the potential environmental benefits of a second-life pathway
through its reuse within a stationary power plant were verified through life cycle assess-
ment. The results showed that a second life application could reduce GWP by ‒49.65 kg
CO2 eq/kWh, TEC by ‒3.70 kg 1.4 DCB eq/kWh, HNCT by ‒3.45 kg 1.4 DCB eq/kWh, ‒3.87
m2a crop eq/kWh and ‒10.98 kg oil eq/kWh compared to a first-life application. Notori-
ously, used LIBs are seen as a problem because, most of the time, they end up in landfills,
although this practice is being discontinued following the new EU Regulation 2023/1542.
In contrast, the results of this study show how, albeit theoretically, extending the life of
baeries could mean reducing their environmental impacts and increasing the amount of
renewable energy available on the grid. From an environmental point of view, second life
is also potentially preferable to other forms of recycling, such as hydrometallurgical and
pyrometallurgical recycling, as it shows lower environmental impacts in all impact cate-
gories considered, also considering the low maturity of the two recycling processes. How-
ever, the two processes are not alternatives but complementary, and it is still useful to
show how a second-life process can be made with low environmental impact by extending
its use. Thus, within a broad ecosystem of solutions for the energy transition, the results
of this study highlight how storage facilities and second-life baeries could be tools that
enable greater sustainability in the lifecycle perspective of electric vehicles. The demand
Energies 2024, 17, 2544 16 of 19
for energy storage is certainly destined to grow significantly shortly due to the strong
increase expected in the development of renewable energies, which, however, depend on
exogenous factors (insolation and windiness) and therefore necessarily need storage sys-
tems, where the energy produced can be stored, both for its more adequate transfer to the
grid and for its conservation at times when energy production is higher than demand (for
wind, for example, the night phase). Therefore, the growing availability in the coming
years of end-of-life baeries from electric vehicles seems to positively intersect with the
also growing need for storage systems alongside renewable energy production. The sec-
ond life of baeries, therefore, could be an opportunity, both as a potential to create new
markets and new jobs and as an approach to the end-of-life of electric vehicle baeries
that, in a circular economy perspective, would determine mitigation of the environmental
impacts related to primary production. However, there remain some critical issues related
to certain aspects. For example, it is important to point out that, for the system to work
well, it is appropriate to use starting baeries that are as homogeneous as possible, in
addition to the fact that even the same model of baery from two different vehicles may
have had a completely different previous history, for example in the number of charge
and discharge cycles, mechanical stresses, status of individual cells, and since it is not
possible to determine these factors without disassembling the pack there is a risk of using
baeries that may have a very different performance, risking compromising the efficiency
of the overall system. Thus, such an approach presents the need to open the baery pack,
disassemble the modules, and test their healthy state, with labor and costs that may make
the second-life storage system uncompetitive. These aspects may therefore not make all
baeries equally redirected to second life because, depending on how the pack is con-
structed, the processing time and cost may differ greatly from case to case. From this point
of view, a possible opportunity could be more coordination by supply chain actors to
make this possibility more efficient, encouraging a more assertive involvement of au-
tomakers and especially fostering standardization of baery pack construction methods
so that disassembly and testing activities are less complex. For now, however, second life
appears (at least) to be a sustainable solution.
Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at
hps://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/en17112544/s1. Table S1: LiFePO4 Baery data; Table S2:
Background data.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, V.C.A. and G.V.; Methodology, V.C.A. and G.V.; Soft-
ware, G.V.; Formal analysis, V.C.A. and M.R.; Resources, G.V. and V.C.A.; Data curation, M.S. and
G.V.; Writing—original draft, V.C.A., M.R. and M.S.; Writing—review and editing, M.S. and R.R.;
Supervision, G.V. and R.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manu-
script.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available upon request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
1. International Environmental Agency (IEA). Transport, 2023, Paris. License: CC BY 4.0. Available online: hps://www.iea.org/en-
ergy-system/transport. (accessed on 6 September 2023).
2. International Environmental Agency (IEA). Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Energy, 2023. Available online:
hps://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/data-product/greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-energy (accessed on 6 September 2023).
3. Zhang, Y.; Ayyub, B.M. Temperature Extremes in a Changing Climate. Clim. Change Extrem. Events 2021, 9–23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-822700-8.00001-9.
4. European Parliament. Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council Amending Regulation (EU) 2019/631 as Regards
Strengthening the CO2 Emission Performance Standards for New Passenger Cars and New Light Commercial Vehicles in Line
with the Union’s Increased Climate Ambition. 2023. Available online: hps://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/PE-66-
2022-INIT/en/pdf (accessed on 14 December 2023).
Energies 2024, 17, 2544 17 of 19
5. Veg a, L.P.; Bautista, K.T.; Campos, H.; Daza, S.; Vargas, G. Biofuel Production in Latin America: A Review for Argentina, Brazil,
Mexico, Chile, Costa Rica, and Colombia. Energy Rep. 2024, 11, 28–38. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2023.10.060.
6. Ravi, S.S.; Mazumder, J.; Sun, J.; Brace, C.; Turner, J.W. Techno -economic Assessment of Synthetic E-Fuels Derived from Atmos-
pheric CO2 and Green Hydrogen. Energy Convers. Manag. 2023, 291, 117271. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2023.117271.
7. Kiner, N.; Tsiropoulos, I.; Tarvydas, D.; Schmidt, O.; Staffell, I.; Kammen, D.M. Electric vehicles. Technological Learning in the
Transition to a Low-Carbon Energy System: Conceptual Issues, Empirical Findings, and Use. In Energy Modeling; Academic
Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; pp. 145–163. hps://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-818762-3.00009-1.
8. Prussi, M.; Laveneziana, L.; Testa, L.; Chiaramonti, D. Comparing e-Fuels and Electrification for Decarbonization of Heavy-
Duty Transports. Energies 2022, 15, 8075. hps://doi.org/10.3390/en15218075.
9. Overland, I. The Geopolitics of Renewable Energy: Debunking Four Emerging Myths. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2019, 49, 36–40.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.10.018.
10. Karali, N.; Shah, N. Bolstering Supplies of Critical Raw Materials for Low-Carbon Technologies through Circular Economy
Strategies. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 2022, 88, 102534. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2022.102534.
11. Czerwinski, F. Critical Minerals for Zero-Emission Transportation. Materials 2022, 15, 5539. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15165539.
12. Bai, Y.; Muralidharan, N.; Sun, Y.K.; Passerini, S.; Whiingham, M.S.; Belharouak, I. Energy and Environmental Aspects in
Recycling Lithium-Ion Baeries: Concept of Baery Identity Global Passport. Mater. Today 2020, 41, 304–315.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.maod.2020.09.001.
13. Baum, Z.J.; Bird, R.E.; Yu, X.; Ma, J. Lithium-Ion Baery Recycling—Overview of Techniques and Trends. ACS Energy Le. 2022,
7, 712–719. hps://doi.org/10.1021/acsenergyle.1c02602.
14. Bae, H.; Kim, Y. Technologies of lithium recycling from waste lithium-ion baeries: A review. Mater. Adv. 2021, 2, 3234–3250.
hps://doi.org/10.1039/d1ma00216c.
15. Engel, J. Development Perspectives of Lithium-Ion Recycling Processes for Electric Vehicle Baeries. Master’s Thesis, University
of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA, 2016; Paper 905. Available online: hps://digitalcommons.uri.edu/theses/905 (accessed on
31 March 2024).
16. Regulation (EU) 2023/1542 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2023 Concerning Baeries and Waste Bat-
teries, Amending Directive 2008/98/EC and Regulation (EU) 2019/1020 and Repealing Directive 2006/66/EC (Te xt with EEA
relevance). Available online: hps://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1542/oj (accessed on 12 January 2024).
17. Ruggieri, R.; Ruggeri, M.; Vinci, G.; Poponi, S. Electric Mobility in a Smart City: European Overview. Energies 2021, 14, 315.
hps://doi.org/10.3390/en14020315.
18. Mowri, S.T.; Barai, A.; Moharana, S.; Gupta, A.; Marco, J. Assessing the Impact of First-Life Lithium-Ion Baery Degradation on
Second-Life Performance. Energies 2024, 17, 501. hps://doi.org/10.3390/en17020501.
19. Kebede, A.A.; Kalogiannis, T.; van Mierlo, J.; Berecibar, M. A comprehensive review of stationary energy storage devices for
large-scale renewable energy sources grid integration. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 159, 112213.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2022.112213.
20. ISO 14040; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principle and Framework. International Organisation for
Standardisation (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2006. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/37456.html (accessed on 31
March 2024).
21. ISO 14044; Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Requirements and Guidelines. International Organisation
for Standardisation (ISO): Geneva, Swierland, 2006. Available online: hps://www.iso.org/standard/38498.html (accessed on
31 March 2024).
22. Hu, X.; Xu, L.; Lin, X.; Pecht, M. Baery Lifetime Prognostics. Joule 2020, 4, 310–346. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.joule.2019.11.018.
23. Philippot, M.; Costa, D.; Hosen, M.S.; Senécat, A.; Brouwers, E.; Nanini-Maury, E.; van Mierlo, J.; Messagie, M. Environmental
Impact of the Second Life of an Automotive Battery: Reuse and Repurpose Based on Ageing Tests. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 366,
132872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.132872.
24. Kotak, Y.; Fernández, C.M.; Casals, L.C.; Kotak, B.S.; Koch, D.; Geisbauer, C.; Trilla, L.; Gómez-Núñez, A.; Schweiger, H.-G. End
of Electric Vehic l e Baeries: Reuse vs. Recycle. Energies 2021, 14, 2217. hps://doi.org/10.3390/en14082217.
25. Porzio, J.; Scown, C.D. Life-Cycle Assessment Considerations for Batteries and Battery Materials. Adv. Energy Mater. 2021, 11,
2100771. https://doi.org/10.1002/aenm.202100771.
26. Siret, C.; Tytgat, J.; Ebert, T.; Mistry, M.; Thirlaway, C.; Schu, B.; Xhantopoulos, D.; Wiaux, J.-P.; Chanson, C.; Tomboy, W.; et
al. PEFCR—Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules for High Specific Energy Rechargeable Baeries for Mobile Ap-
plications; Version: H.; Time of Validity: 31 December 2020. Available online: hps://ec.europa.eu/environ-
ment/eussd/smgp/pdf/PEFCR_Baeries.pdf (accessed on 27 March 2021).
27. Wernet, G.; Bauer, C.; Steubing, B.; Reinhard, J.; Moreno-Ruiz, E.; Weidema, B. The Ecoinvent Database Versi o n 3 (Part I): Over-
view and Methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2016, 21, 1218–1230. hps://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8.
28. Pre-Consulting. LCA Software for Informed Changemakers, 2024. Available online: hps://simapro.com/ (accessed on 21 Feb-
ruary 2024).
29. SNE Research. LIB Manufacturing Equipment Development Status and Mid/Long-Term Outlook (~2030). 2023. Available online:
hps://www.sneresearch.com/en/business/report/ (accessed on 25 September 2023).
Energies 2024, 17, 2544 18 of 19
30. European Commission. Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs. In Study on the Critical
Raw Materials for the EU 2023—Final Report; Grohol, M., Veeh , C., Eds.; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg,
2023. Available online: hps://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2873/725585 (accessed on 31 March 2024).
31. Garcia, L.V.; Ho, Y.-C.; Myo Thant, M.M.; Han, D.S.; Lim, J.W. Lithium in a Sustainable Circular Economy: A Comprehensive
Review. Processes 2023, 11, 418. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11020418.
32. Hocking, M. Deutsche Bank. Market Research. Lithium 101: Welcome to the Lithium Age. 2016. Available online:
hp://www.belmontresources.com/LithiumReport.pdf (accessed on 2 October 2023).
33. USGS. Mineral Commodity Summary. Antimony [Online]. 2018. Available online: hps://minerals.usgs.gov/miner-
als/pubs/commodity/antimony/ (accessed on 21 February 2024).
34. CRU. Lithium Prices Crash through $10,000 as Hype Meets Reality, CRU Insight. 2019. Available online: hps://www.cru-
group.com/knowledge-andinsights/insights/2019/lithium-prices-crash-through-10-000-as-hype-meets-reality (accessed on 2
October 2023).
35. Zhangjiagang Guotai Huarong New Chemical Materials Co., Ltd. (ZGHNCM). About. 2023. Available online:
hp://www.gthr.com.cn/about-e.html (accessed on 3 October 2023).
36. Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Limited ( CATL). Supplier Portal. 2023. Available online: hps://nsrm.catl.com/#/sup-
plier-portal/home-page?lang=en (accessed on 2 October 2023).
37. Aluminium Stewardship Initiative. 2023. Available online: hps://aluminium-stewardship.org/about-asi/members/Jiangsu-
Dingsheng-New-Materials-Joint-Stock-Co---Ltd (accessed on 21 February 2024).
38. Statista. Major China Seaborne Bauxite Receiving Ports. 2023. Available online: hps://www.statista.com/statistics/1325319/ma-
jor-china-seaborne-bauxite-receiving-ports/ (accessed on 21 February 2024).
39. IHS. Chemical Economics Handbook: Phosphorus and Phosphorus Chemicals; S&P Global: New York, NY, USA, 2017.
40. Asian Metal. 2023. Available online: hps://www.asianmetal.com/news/1774466/Jiayuan-Technology-and-CATL-to-build-
100,000tpy-electrolytic-copper-foil-project (accessed on 2 October 2023).
41. Markets and Markets. Dimethyl Carbonate Market. 2022. Available online: https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Re-
searchInsight/dimethyl-carbonate-market.asp (accessed on 2 October 2023).
42. Shao, Z.; He, H.; Mao, S.; Liang, S.; Liu, S.; Tan, X.; Gao, M.; Xin, Y. Toward Greener and More Sustainable Freight Systems.
Comparing Freight Strategies in the United States and China. International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT). 2022.
Available online: hps://theicct.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/China-US-freight_final.pdf (accessed on 4 October 2023).
43. Cui, S.; Piman, R.; Zhao, J. Restructuring the Chinese Freight Railway: Two Scenarios. Asia Glob. Econ. 2020, 1, 100002.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGLOBE.2021.100002.
44. Vinci, G.; Maddaloni, L.; Ruggeri, M.; Vieri, S. Environmental life cycle assessment of rice production in northern Italy: A case
study from Vercelli. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2022, 1–18. hps://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-022-02109-x.
45. Xu, Q.; Dai, L.; Gao, P.; Dou, Z. The Environmental, Nutritional, and Economic Benefits of Rice-Aquaculture Animal Coculture
in China. Energy 2022, 249, 123723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2022.123723.
46. de Schryver, A.M.; van Zelm, R.; Humbert, S.; Pfister, S.; McKone, T.E.; Huijbregts, M.A.J. Value choices in life cycle impact the
assessment of stressors causing human health damage. J. Ind. Ecol. 2011, 15, 796–815. hps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-
9290.2011.00371.x.
47. Wolf, M.A.; Pant, R.; Chomkhamsri, K.; Sala, S.; Pennington, D. International Reference Life Cycle Data System (ILCD) Handbook—
Towards More Sustainable Production and Consumption for a Resource-Efficient Europe. JRC Reference Report, EUR 24982 EN. European
Commission—Joint Research Centre; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2012. Available online:
hps://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/JRC-Reference-Report-ILCD-Handbook-Towards-more-sustainable-production-and-
consumption-for-a-resource-efficient-Europe.pdf (accessed on 21 February 2024).
48. Acero, A.P.; Rodríguez, C.; Ciroth, A. LCIA Methods: Impact Assessment Methods in Life Cycle Assessment and Their Impact Catego-
ries; GreenDelta: Berlin, Germany, 2014.
49. Bare, J.C. Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI), Version 2.1—User’s Manual;
EPA/600/R-12/554; US Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
50. Milian, Y.E.; Jamett, N.; Cruz, C.; Herrera-León, S.; Chacana-Olivares, J. A Comprehensive Review of Emerging Technologies
for Recycling Spent Lithium-Ion Batteries. Sci. Total Environ. 2024, 910, 168543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.168543.
51. Dobó, Z.; Dinh, T.; Kulcsár, T. A review on recycling of spent lithium-ion baeries. Energy Rep. 2023, 9, 6362–6395.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYR.2023.05.264.
52. Akhmetov, N.; Manakhov, A.; Al-Qasim, A.S. Li-Ion Battery Cathode Recycling: An Emerging Response to Growing Metal
Demand and Accumulating Battery Waste. Electronics 2023, 12, 1152. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics12051152.
53. Toro, L.; Moscardini, E.; Baldassari, L.; Forte, F.; Falcone, I.; Colea, J.; Toro, L. A Systematic Review of Baery Recycling Tech-
nologies: Advances, Challenges, and Future Prospects. Energies 2023, 16, 6571. hps://doi.org/10.3390/en16186571.
54. Kallitsis, E.; Korre, A.; Kelsall, G.H. Life cycle assessment of recycling options for automotive Li-ion baery packs. J. Clean. Prod.
2022, 371, 133636. hps://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2022.133636.
55. Chalaris, M.; Gkika, D.A.; Tolkou, A.K.; Kyzas, G.S. Advancements and sustainable strategies for the treatment and manage-
ment of wastewaters from metallurgical industries: An overview. Env. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 119627–119653.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-30891-0.
Energies 2024, 17, 2544 19 of 19
56. Conejo, A.N.; Birat, J.P.; Dua, A. A review of the current environmental challenges of the steel industry and its value chain. J.
Env. Manag. 2020, 259, 109782. hps://doi.org/10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2019.109782.
57. Sonter, L.J.; Barre, D.J.; Soares-Filho, B.S.; Moran, C.J. Global Demand for Steel Drives Extensive Land-Use Change in Brazil’s
Iron Quadrangle. Glob. Environ. Change 2014, 26, 63–72. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.03.014.
58. Georgiikis, K.; Mancini, L.; d’Elia, E.; Vidal-Legaz, B. Sustainability Aspects of Bauxite and Aluminium—Climate Change, Environ-
mental, Socio-Economic, and Circular Economy Considerations, EUR 30760 EN; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxem-
bourg, 2021; ISBN 978-92-76-40039-4. hps://doi.org/10.2760/702356.
59. Ahmadi, L.; Young, S.B.; Fowler, M.; Fraser, R.A.; Achachlouei, M.A. A cascaded life cycle: Reuse of electric vehicle lithium-ion
battery packs in energy storage systems. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017, 22, 111–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0959-7.
60. Ahmadi, L.; Yip, A.; Fowler, M.; Young, S.B.; Fraser, R.A. Environmental feasibility of re-use of electric vehicle batteries. Sustain
Energy Technol. Assess. 2014, 6, 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2014.01.006.
61. Wilson, N.; Meiklejohn, E.; Overton, B.; Robinson, F.; Farjana, S.H.; Li, W.; Staines, J. A physical allocation method for compar-
ative life cycle assessment: A case study of repurposing Australian electric vehicle batteries. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 174,
105759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105759.
62. Marchese, D.; Giosuè, C.; Staffolani, A.; Conti, M.; Orcioni, S.; Soavi, F.; Cavalletti, M.; Stipa, P. An Overview of the Sustainable
Recycling Processes Used for Lithium-Ion Batteries. Batteries 2024, 10, 27. https://doi.org/10.3390/batteries10010027.
63. Wrålsen, B.; O’Born, R. Use of Life Cycle Assessment to Evaluate Circular Economy Business Models in the Case of Li-ion
Battery Remanufacturing. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2023, 28, 554–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02154-0.
64. Ma, J.; Wan g , J.; Jia, K.; Liang, Z.; Ji, G.; Zhuang, Z.; Zhou, G.; Cheng, H.M. Adaptable Eutectic Salt for the Direct Recycling of
Highly Degraded Layer Cathodes. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2022, 144, 20306–20314. hps://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.2c07860.
65. Abdalla, A.M.; Abdullah, M.F.; Dawood, M.K.; Wei, B.; Subramanian, Y.; Azad, A.T.; Nourin, S.; Afroze, S.; Taweekun, J.; Azad,
A.K. Innovative Lithium-Ion Baery Recycling: Sustainable Process for Recovery of Critical Materials from Lithium-Ion Baer-
ies. J. Energy Storage 2023, 67, 107551. hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2023.107551.
66. Svetkina, O.Y.; Koveria, A.S.; Ovcharenko, A.O.; Tarasova, H.v.; Panteleieva, O.S. Development of a Scheme for the Utilisation
of Spent Lithium-Ion Baeries by Bioleaching. J. Chem. Technol. 2023, 31, 590–600.
hps://doi.org/10.15421/jchemtech.v31i3.285427.
67. Anwani, S.; Methekar, R.; Ramadesigan, V. Resynthesizing of Lithium Cobalt Oxide from Spent Lithium-Ion Baeries Using an
Environmentally Benign and Economically Viable Recycling Process. Hydrometallurgy 2020, 197, 105430.
hps://doi.org/10.1016/j.hydromet.2020.105430.
68. Ma, G.; Cheng, M. Hydrothermal Method Preparing Lithium-Ion Baery Cathode Material Li4Ti5O12 Using Metatitanic Acid.
Ferroelectrics 2018, 536, 181–186. hps://doi.org/10.1080/00150193.2017.1391595.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual au-
thor(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.