4.7 Article

How will second-use of batteries affect stocks and flows in the EU? A model for traction Li-ion batteries

期刊

RESOURCES CONSERVATION AND RECYCLING
卷 145, 期 -, 页码 279-291

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.02.022

关键词

Second-use; Reuse; Europe; Material Flow Analysis (MFA); Materials/energy flows; Li-ion batteries

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although not yet developed in Europe, second-use of traction batteries enables an extension of their lifetime and potentially improves life cycle environmental performance. Li-ion batteries (LIBs) offer the most promising chemistry for traction batteries in electric vehicles (xEVs) and for second-use. Due to the novelty of the topic and the expected increase of e-mobility in the next decades, more efforts to understand the potential consequences of second-use of batteries from different perspectives are needed. This paper develops a dynamic, parameterised Material Flow Analysis (MFA) model to estimate stocks and flows of LIBs after their removal from xEVs along the specific processes of the european value-chain. Direct reuse, second-use and recycling are included in the model and parameters make it customisable and updatable. Focusing on full and plug-in electric vehicles, LIBs and energy storage capacity flows are estimated. Stocks and flows of two embedded materials relevant for Europe were also assessed (cobalt and lithium). Results showed that second-use corresponds to a better exploitation of LIBs' storage capacity. Meanwhile, Co and Li in-use stocks are locked in LIBs and their recovery is delayed by second-use; depending on the slower/faster development of second-use, the amount of Co available for recycling in 2030 ranges between 9% and 15% of Co demand and between 7 and 16% for Li. Uncertainty of inputs is addressed through sensitivity analysis. A variety of actors can use this MFA model to enhance knowledge of second-use of batteries in Europe and to support the effective management of LIBs along their value-chain.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据