4.7 Article

Evaluating the cost and carbon footprint of second-life electric vehicle batteries in residential and utility-level applications

期刊

WASTE MANAGEMENT
卷 113, 期 -, 页码 497-507

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2020.05.034

关键词

Second-life battery; Rooftop PV; Peak shaving; PV firming; Life-cycle assessment

资金

  1. Ford Motor Company

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The volume of end-of-life automotive batteries is increasing rapidly as a result of growing electric vehicle adoption. Most automotive lithium-ion batteries (LIBs) are recycled but could be repurposed as second-life batteries (SLBs) since they have 70-80% residual capacity, which can be adequate for stationary applications. SLBs have been proposed as potential, inexpensive, low-carbon energy storage for residential and utility-level applications, with or without photovoltaics (PV). However, it is unknown whether SLBs will be better than new batteries and whether SLBs will provide similar cost and carbon emission reduction for the different stationary applications in all locations. This work compared the levelized cost of electricity and life-cycle carbon emissions associated with using SLBs and new LIBs in the US for three energy storage applications: (1) residential energy storage with rooftop PV, (2) utility-level PV firming, and (3) utility-level peak-shaving, leading to a total of 41 scenarios. SLBs reduced the levelized cost of electricity by 12-57% and carbon emissions by 7-31% compared to new LIBs in the considered applications, with higher reductions for utility-level applications. SLBs still provided benefits at the residential level when compared to rooftop PV alone by reducing the levelized cost by 15-25% and carbon emissions by 22-51%, making SLBs attractive to residential consumers as well. SLBs offer an opportunity to utilize an end-of-life product for energy storage applications, provided the uncertainty in SLB quality and availability is addressed. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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