4.6 Article

Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Mobile Power Banks with Lithium-Ion Battery and Lithium-Ion Polymer Battery

Journal

SUSTAINABILITY
Volume 11, Issue 19, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su11195148

Keywords

life cycle assessment; environmental impact; metal depletion; mobile power bank; lithium-ion battery; lithium-ion polymer battery

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation Project [71832013, 71901194]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province [LY19G010009]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2018QNA4007]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mobile power bank (MPB) is an emerging consumer electronic that stores and delivers electricity to other electronics. Nowadays, MPBs are produced and discarded in massive quantities, yet their environmental impacts have never been quantitatively evaluated. Employing a life cycle assessment (LCA) approach, this study assesses the life cycle environmental impacts of MPBs, with a specific focus on comparing the environmental performance of different MPBs that are based on two types of batteries, namely, lithium-ion battery (LIB) and lithium-ion polymer battery (LIPB). The results suggest that battery production is the greatest contributor to the environmental impacts of both MPBs. LIPB based MPB is environmentally friendlier due to its higher energy density and longer cycle life. In addition, it is found that recycling can reduce the environmental burden of MPB industry as well as ease the vast depletion of metals such as cobalt and copper. The sensitivity analysis shows that figuring out an optimal retirement point and using less carbon-intensive electricity can reduce the climate change potential of MPBs. This study provides recommendations to further improve the environmental performance of MPB, including the usage of more sustainable cathode materials, market promoting direction, and formulation of end-of-life management policy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available