4.7 Article

Comparative life cycle assessment of high performance lithium-sulfur battery cathodes

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 282, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124528

关键词

Energy storage; Li-S battery; Life cycle assessment; Environmental impact; Energy density; Ecodesign

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lithium-sulfur (Li-S) batteries have the potential to replace conventional batteries, with a comparative analysis showing that optimizing sulfur loadings in cathodes can significantly reduce environmental impacts, while controlling the amount of electrolyte can reduce specific impacts by up to 70%.
Lithium-sulfur (Li-S) batteries present a great potential to displace current energy storage chemistries thanks to their energy density that goes far beyond conventional batteries. To promote the development of greener Li-S batteries, closing the existing gap between the quantification of the potential environmental impacts associated with Li-S cathodes and their performance is required. Herein we show a comparative analysis of the life cycle environmental impacts of five Li-S battery cathodes with high sulfur loadings (1.5-15 mg.cm(2)) through life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology and cradle-to-gate boundary. Depending on the selected battery, the environmental impact can be reduced by a factor up to 5. LCA results from Li-S batteries are compared with the conventional lithium ion battery from Ecoinvent 3.6 database, showing a decreased environmental impact per kWh of storage capacity. A predominant role of the electrolyte on the environmental burdens associated with the use of Li-S batteries was also found. Sensitivity analysis shows that the specific impacts can be reduced by up to 70% by limiting the amount of used electrolyte. Overall, this manuscript emphasizes the potential of Li-S technology to develop environmentally benign batteries aimed at replacing existing energy storage systems. (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