Cradle-to-gate life-cycle assessment of future materials...

FACULTY OF ENGINEERING AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT Department of Building, Energy and Environmental Engineering

Cradle-to-gate life-cycle assessment of future materials for commercial lithium-ion batteries

Raw materials issues

Pablo Martinez Pancorbo

2018

Student thesis, Advanced level (Master degree, one year), 15 HE Environmental Engineering

Master Programme in Energy Engineering, Energy Online

Supervisor: Karl Hillman Assistant supervisor: Shveta Soam

Examiner: Björn O Karlsson

i

Preface

This work has been only possible thanks to the help uncountable hours of

collecting raw data and the very valuable corrections and ideas to the report

made by Karl Hillman during objective definition and initial corrections steps.

In this thesis contains a novel approach to interdisciplinary fields including

materials science, energy systems and life-cycle analysis. All the knowledge

obtained during the degree has been very relevant to approach this report as

research focus project and it is planned to be submitted to a scientific journal

after it is presented in Gavle. The relevance of this paper is multidisciplinary

and it can be a valuable piece of work for anybody related to electromobility or

energy storage.

ii

iii

Definitions and units

Here the reader can find all the acronyms, units and other technical words used

in the report.

CaCl2 calcium chloride

CH4 methane

C6H6 benzene

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CO2eq carbon dioxide equivalent, it stands for a unit based on the

global warming potential of different greenhouse gases

EV electric vehicle

GHG greenhouse gas

H2 hydrogen, molecule

Hg mercury

LiC6 lithiated graphite or lithium intercalated graphite

MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet, a document that contains

information on the potential hazards and how to work

safely with the chemical product

NaOH sodium hydroxide

(NH4)2SO4 ammonium sulphate

NiOx nitrogen oxides

NMHC non-methane hydrocarbon

NMVOC the non-methane volatile organic compound, unspecified

origin

PM2.5 particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometres or

less

PM2.5-10 particulate matter with a diameter from 2.5 to 10

micrometres

iv

PM10 particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometres or

less

sccm standard cubic centimetre/minute

SO2 sulphur dioxide

SOx sulphur oxides

v

vi

Abstract

Current private transportation remains very harmful for the environment,

especially the non-electric vehicles. This report proposes five novel type of

nanomaterials-based Li-ion batteries to improve substantially the electric

vehicle battery properties along with a substantial reduction of the

environmental impact of its commercial counterparts. To address the problem,

a cradle-to-gate life-cycle assessment has been performed in which the biggest

emphasis has been focused on the energy and materials inputs and outputs

during the raw materials extraction. We show how the analyzed Ni-doped

graphene battery and Fe3O4-based Cu battery are the most environmentally

friendly, stable, reliable and improved batteries among the five cases of study.

These results can open new horizons for future advances in the implantation of

an electromobility transportation.

vii

viii

Table of contents

Definitions and units ............................................................................. iii

Abstract ............................................................................................ vi

1 Introduction ................................................................................. 1

2 Methods ...................................................................................... 5

2.1 LCA framework ...................................................................... 5

2.2 System definition ..................................................................... 7

2.3 System boundaries ................................................................... 7

2.4 Data collection ....................................................................... 7

2.5 Data calculations and flows ......................................................... 8

3 Process and results ......................................................................... 9

3.1 LCA steps ............................................................................. 9

3.1.1 Raw materials acquisition ................................................... 10

3.1.2 Treatment of the raw materials and batteries production ............. 25

3.1.3 Car production ................................................................ 28

3.1.4 Use of cars and recycling perspectives .................................... 28

4 Discussion .................................................................................. 30

5 Conclusions and further research....................................................... 34

References ........................................................................................ 35

Appendix A: MSDS symbols and codes definition. GH-, H- and P- phrases .......... 42

Appendix B: Kyoto gases and GWP .......................................................... 44

1

1 Introduction

Sustainable development is defined as a "development that meets the needs of the

present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own

needs" [1]. Currently, there are several threads that challenge the future human

welfare. Among them, some of the most important issues are anthropogenic

contributions to global climate change [2], [3] and a globally growing population

which increases its energy consumption [4]. These challenges can be slowed

significantly by using smart and efficient renewable energy systems to meet the energy

needs without compromising the environment. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to

implement significant improvements in the energy storage, especially in electrical

energy. One of the sectors more easily converted into electrical systems is the

transport sector, concretely via electric cars and trains (also known as

electromobility) as already proved in many developed countries such as Sweden,

Germany, South Korea and Japan [5], [6]. Although, among these types of transport,

only cars bring the need of portable battery systems, since trains are connected to the

grid and continuously powered by an external electrical energy source.

Figure 1. Diagram of the historical development of Li-ion batteries to address the

electric needs (mix of images from different sources [7]–[11])

The first commercialized rechargeable lithium-ion battery was released by Sony

Corporation in 1991, which had LiCoO2 and graphite as active elements of the

positive and negative electrodes, respectively [12]. Since then, the power of these has

raised up beyond the original expectative, and this has led to new markets for portable

electric machines as displayed in Figure 1. Electromobility is one of the most

2

promising and challenging batteries applications because it requires strong autonomy,

rapid charge rate and long lifespan to meet the user habits, needs and expectations.

This improvement is already being accomplished experimentally through the

implementation of nanotechnology across the battery design and fabrication.

Global storage capacity was approximately 4.67 TWh in 2017 and is forecasted to rise

to 11.89-15.72 TWh in 2030 [13]. The global battery energy storage systems (BESS)

contribution amounts to a small percentage of the total, from a present 11 GWh

(2017) to between 100-167 GWh in 2030. The number of publications in BESS has

incremented more than any other type of electrical energy storage technology [14].

BESS market growth and future cost prediction analyses for electromobility have

shown significant cost decline attributed mainly to an increment in the battery cell

production capacity [15]. For cars, the maximum commercialized battery capacity is

100 kWh by Tesla, Inc. in 2017, it is integrated into the Model S 100D and whose

final price’s order of magnitude is £90,000. Some more affordable options for most

of the public despite being reducing power and autonomy include the Nissan Leaf

with a lithium-ion battery capacity of 40 kWh for £30,000 approximately and the

Renault Twizy model with a battery capacity of 6.1 kWh for £7,000 approximately.

Hence, there is a dramatic need for improving the energy storage capacity for cost-

effective vehicles. The cited values provide the energy storage reference units for

electric vehicles in kWh.

Currently, some of the most promising nanoengineered options for boosting the

lithium-ion battery performances are 3D nitrogen-doped graphene foam with

encapsulated Ge/Ni-doped graphene yolk-shell nanoarchitectured electrode material

[8], reconstructed surfaces of nanocrystals [16], metal oxide hollow nanostructures as

electrodes [9], Fe3O4-based Cu nanoarchitectured electrodes [11] and thin vertically

aligned carbon nanotubes (CNTs) decorated with Si nanoparticles as anodes [10].

These novel approaches bring improvements in the capacity, charge rate, life

expectancy, load size and state of charge for battery packs in electric vehicles. Hence,

foreseeing the environmental impact of these nanomaterials integration in batteries

has become one of the key elements to understand if they are a sustainable and viable

option. The best tool for this purpose is the life cycle assessment.

It is highly desirable to replace the classical graphitic carbons by high-capacity

electrode material, such as alloys (Sn, Si and Ge) and metal oxides (Co3O4, SnO2 and

GeO2), owing to their higher theoretical capacities (>1,000 mAh g−1) [8]. Also, 3D

interconnected graphene network structures have been identified to be ideal as a

current collector or matrix for high-capacity electrode materials [17]–[19]. The

rational design and fabrication of the 3D interconnected porous nitrogen-doped

graphene foam with encapsulated Ge quantum dot/nitrogen-doped graphene yolk-

shell nanoarchitecture displays high specific reversible capacity (1,220 mAh g−1), long

3

cycling capability (over 96% reversible capacity retention from the second to 1,000

cycles) and ultra-high rate performance, over 800 mAh g−1 at 40 C (1 C = 200 mA

g−1) [8]. This work paves a way to develop the 3D interconnected graphene-based

high-capacity electrode material systems, particularly those that suffer from huge

volume expansion, for the future development of high-performance flexible energy

storage systems.

Rechargeable lithium ion batteries are a key component for electric vehicles and

energy storage equipment because of their unique advantages including low cost, high

energy density, and long cycle life. This type of batteries require high-quality cathode

materials and, among reported cathode materials, LiFePO4 is one of the most

promising candidates for the next generation of lithium-ion batteries with high power

and high energy. Compared to the commercial LiCoO2 [20], LiFePO4 materials

possess a theoretical capacity of 170 mAh g–1 and a stable voltage plateau, 3.45 V

versus lithium, which is compatible with the window of a solid-polymer Li-ion

electrolyte, making LiFePO4 have excellent cycle-ability and large capacity [21]–[23].

On the other hand, SnO2 is a very important metal oxide with intriguing properties

and a large number of applications in gas sensing and energy storage [24]. The lithium

storage in SnO2 is based on the reversible alloying‐dealloying reactions between

lithium and metallic Sn nanocrystals, formed from the initial irreversible reduction of

SnO2 [9]. This process gives rise to a low work potential of ca. 0.6 V (vs. Li/Li+) and

a high theoretical capacity of 790 mAh g−1, but also severe electrode degradation due

to the huge volume change (>200%) upon lithium insertion/extraction. To prolong

the cycle life of SnO2 anodes, SnO2 hollow nanostructures such as nanospheres or

nanorods are used within the Li-ion batteries [24].

Fe3O4 is an attractive material, being one of the cheapest common oxides, with very

low toxicity [25], and it is an environmentally friendly product (part of iron rust). It

has been shown to act as a rechargeable conversion electrode material that reacts with

eight Li per formula unit at a potential of 1.6 V versus Li+/Li [26]. Also, in the last

decades, conversion reactions of interstitial-free 3d metal oxide structures such as

CuO with structures unsuitable for intercalation chemistry have nevertheless been

shown to exhibit large, rechargeable capacities in cells with lithium [27], [28]. The

specific capacities of these materials as potential candidates for the negative electrode

can be as high as 1,000 mAh g−1 (that is, about three times those of commonly used

graphitic carbons) [11]. Using the active material (Fe3O4) and current collector metal

(Cu) could represent one of the most powerful innovative candidates to overcome all

the limitations of the current commercial counterparts.

Hybrid nanostructured collectors made of thin vertically aligned carbon nanotubes

(CNTs) decorated with Si nanoparticles provides high power density anodes in

4

lithium‐ion batteries [29]. Due to the efficient electronic conduction of CNTs

combined with well-defined electroactive Si nanoparticles, the capacities achieved are

3000 mAh g−1 at 1.3 C and 800 mAh g−1 at 15 C. Galvanostatic profiles at 1.3 C in

the potential window 3 V–0.02 V vs Li+/Li show a high capacity of 0.20 mAh during

the first reduction [10]. The whole specific capacity is related to silicon

alloying/dealloying [30].

The purpose of this report is highlighting the main environmental threats during the

production, use and recycling of novel materials incorporated in lithium-ion batteries

for electromobility. Although this study presents a comparison among a number of

materials, it also analyses which is the high spot of the most environmentally friendly.

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is the analytical technique used in this report to evaluate

the potential environmental risks and impacts of a product, process, or activity until

the end of its life cycle [31], [32]. This tool provides the analytical path to assess the

environmental impacts.

5

2 Methods

This chapter introduces the different methods that will be used during the report. It

also defines the main concepts behind an LCA and how it is approached. The main

aspects are the data collection, data calculation, and allocation of flows and releases.

2.1 LCA framework

LCAs are the main analytical tool used in this report to estimate the possible

environmental negative impacts of the nanomaterials life cycle for lithium-ion

batteries. Due to the fast development of LCA methodologies and their dissemination

by international and regional institutions and networks, LCAs are increasing their use

and applicability. Currently, the cradle to grave LCA has been standardized by ISO

[33], by following four interrelated phases (see Figure 2):

• Goal and scope definition: Stating the goal and scope of the study.

• Inventory analysis: Assembling an inventory of relevant material and energy

inputs with their respective environmental outputs (Life Cycle Inventory

(LCI) analysis).

• Impact assessment: Evaluating the potential environmental impacts associated

with identified inputs and releases (Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)).

• Interpretation: Interpreting the results to inform future stakeholders.

Figure 2. Flowchart of the standard cradle to grave LCA implementation steps

In Figure 2, the arrows represent the flows and the different boxes represent

independent processes in the flowchart. The LCA applications are interacting

simultaneously with the four steps of the LCA.

6

In order to perform an LCA, it is necessary to include data from several sources. This

usually includes data from LCIs, companies’ websites, patents and scientific papers

along with the current LCA (with LCI) to provide much more reliable and

comprehensive information. We also want to try to include material safety data

information (MSDS) as a novel approach to analyze the risks and safety of the

inventory analysis and impact assessment (see Figure 1).

In this report, the LCA scheme was built over the design of a 40-kWh battery for a

plug-in fully-electrical vehicle. Material needs were determined based on literature

references. Associated resources and emissions were found in existing databases for

LCA and focus to Europe in terms of local impact and globally. LCI involves data

collection and calculation procedures to analyze the inputs and outputs of the system.

The impact assessment phase of LCA has evaluated the significance of potential

environmental impacts using the LCI results.

Figure 3. Life cycle stages of a battery for electromobility applications, and cradle-to-

gate subset definition (mix of images from different sources)

Fig. 3 shows the global flowchart that we investigated and the different considerations

in each step to account appropriately the system inputs and outputs.

7

2.2 System definition

The study was a cradle to gate (see Figure 3) life cycle assessment of a lithium-ion

battery and the related background processes including the integration of

nanomaterials to enhance its performance. The functional unit was defined as a 40

kWh battery for a plug-in electric vehicle capable of sustaining 4000 charge cycles

[34] at 100% depth of discharge and a remaining capacity of 80%, giving at least a

200,000 km operation during the vehicle design lifetime to represent a realistic utility

vehicle which usually 8 years for a standard vehicle. This approach assumes as a

functional unit a battery lasting the full lifetime of a vehicle, as previously done by

others [35]–[37].

2.3 System boundaries

The system boundaries for an LCA determine which processes and activities include

the overall LCA. The system boundary in LCAs must be specified in several

dimensions: boundaries between the implemented technology and nature,

geographical and time zone related delimitations, and boundaries between the life

cycle of the product studied, related life cycles of other products and byproducts [38],

material and energy flows of primary processes, extraction of raw materials and

production of intermediate feedstocks or the manufacture of equipment [39]. All of

these considerations are applied to the system described in Figure 3.

2.4 Data collection

The data collection related to each unit process is usually classified as:

• Energy inputs, raw material inputs, ancillary inputs, other physical inputs

• Products, co-products and waste

• Emissions to air discharges to water and soil

• Other environmental aspects

The data collection is an iterative process, i.e. the more data is collected, the more

new data requirements and limitations are identified that may require changes in the

data collection procedures themselves. Usually, this type of data is obtained from LCI

databases such us European Reference Life Cycle Database (ELCD) [40] and the U.S.

Life Cycle Inventory Database [41]. This report also includes the health and safety

data provided by the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) of all the nanomaterials

implemented to include the impact in the human health, ecotoxicity, flammability,

acidity, explosivity and recycling needs among others. These details are only relevant

in the analysis while they represent inputs and outputs of each sub-process along the

8

life cycle. Previous LCAs of lithium-ion batteries, electromobility, electrical vehicles,

end use, and recycling process are also used to assess the LCA.

2.5 Data calculations and flows

First, we calculate the flow throughout the life cycle based on the functional unit.

Once the roadmap or flowchart is set, we follow the following steps: classification

which identifies the important elements (materials, electricity, transport, waste

treatment, etc.) and sort them into classes according to the effect they have on the

environment; characterization which is finding the indicators (so-called

characterization factors) in the LCI databases and multiply each of them and add them

up to the total score to quantify how much impact a product or service has in each

impact category; and normalization by quantifying impact is compared to a certain

reference value [42]. This also includes counting the flows and releases across the

cradle to the crave life cycle.

These calculations include several alternative flowcharts depending on the materials

used to enhance the battery performance. A comparative analysis has been carried out

to identify which material shows the most promising integration in lithium-ion

batteries.

9

3 Process and results

3.1 LCA steps

In this subchapter, we discuss the different steps of the life-cycle having subsections

for each option. In a lithium-ion battery, the main components are the electrodes and

the electrolyte. The negative electrode or cathode of a conventional lithium-ion cell

is made from carbon, the positive electrode or anode is a metal oxide, and the

electrolyte is a lithium salt in an organic solvent. The cathodes and anodes in lithium-

ion batteries are traditionally intercalation and conversion compounds [43], and some

new methods also include electrochemically activated composite materials [44]. We

focus specifically in some most promising options which includes the following

materials: Ni-doped graphene foam with encapsulated Ge/Ni-doped graphene [8],

LiFePO4 nanocrystals [16], [45], SnO2 hollow nanostructures [9], [46], [47], Fe3O4-

based Cu [13] and carbon nanotubes (CNTs) decorated with Si nanoparticles [14].

It is very important to analyze all the different inputs and outputs of every type of

battery proposed in every step of this report as specified in the following table.

Table 1. Inputs and outputs in the LCA

Inputs and outputs

• Energy

• Raw material

• Ancillary

• Waste

• Emissions to air

• Discharges to water and soil

• Human exposure to harmful or hazardous substances

• Investment/gains

• Social impact such as jobs

10

3.1.1 Raw materials acquisition

The following table brings a checklist of what needs to be addressed.

Table 2. Inputs and outputs analysis of the studied types of batteries

Battery options Emissions Energy Raw

materials

Health

risks

Social

impact

Ni-doped graphene battery materials

Low Input & output

Output, many

Few Not

known

LiFePO4 battery materials

Low Input & output

Output, many

Many Not

known

SnO2 battery materials

Mid-high Input & output

Output, few

Few Not

known

Fe3O4-based Cu battery materials

Middle Input & output

Output, many

Few Not

known

CNT battery materials

Middle Input & output

Output, many

Many Not

known

For the Ni-doped graphene foam with encapsulated Ge/Ni-doped graphene-based Li-

ion battery, the list of chemicals required to create is: porous nitrogen foam,

argon(90%)/hydrogen(10%) gas mixture, pyridine, germanium tetrachloride

(GeCl4, 99.99%), pure nitrogen plate (99.98 wt.%) and 1 M hydrochloric acid (HCl)

[8].

The list of chemicals required to produce the LiFePO4 nanocrystals based Li-ion

battery is: Lithium acetate dehydrate (0.2 mmol), iron(III) acetylacetonate (0.2

mmol), and tris(2-ethylhexyl) phosphate (0.2 mmol) with 15 mL of oleic acid (45

mmol), 15 mL of oleylamine (45 mmol), manganese (II) acetylacetonate (0.2 mmol),

glucose (20 wt %), 1.39 g of iron (II) sulfate heptahydrate (FeSO4·7H2O), ethylene

glycol, lithium hydroxide monohydrate (LiOH·H2O), phosphoric acid (H3PO4),

argon (Ar) gas and manganese sulfate (MnSO4·H2O) [16], [45].

For the SnO2 hollow nanostructures based Li-ion battery, the list of chemicals

required to create includes tin(II) sulphate (SnSO4), ethanol and DI H2O [24], [46].

For the Fe3O4-based Cu Li-ion battery, the list of chemicals required to create is:

CuSO4·5H2O 100 g L−1, (NH4)2SO4 (Acros Organics) 20 g L−1 and diethyl-tri-amine

(DETA, Acros Organics) 80 mL L−1, inside the pores of an alumina oxide membrane

(AAO, Whatman, Anodisc 47, reference 6809 5022), SiC paper, alumina slurry,

deionized water, cellulose paper separator (Whatman, reference 1441-055) was 215-

μm thick, with a weight of 85 m2 g−1 and a mean porous diameter of 20 μm, 2 M

NaOH, 0.1 M tri-ethanol-amine (Acros Organics) [11].

11

For the carbon nanotubes (CNTs) decorated with Si nanoparticles based Li-ion

battery, the list of chemicals required to create is: 50 μm thick stainless steel foils

(Aldrich, AISI 321), acetone and isopropanol and, then covered by an aluminum

buffer layer (20 nm), iron chloride (FeCl3, 6H2O), CH4/H2 mixture (ΦH2 = 100

sccm, ΦSiH4 = 20 sccm), SiH4/H2 mixture (ΦH2 = 100 sccm, ΦSiH4 = 20 sccm).

The energy inputs and outputs for the raw materials acquisition is very subjective

measurement since it depends on which part of the world this material was obtained

from, where it will be delivered, and which methods are being used for the extraction

or synthesis. Depending on the energy demand and generation to create the materials

required for each battery, we can estimate which of them will be more

environmentally friendly and more cost-effective in this initial steps.

In the following table, we summarize our particular approach of the energy assets by

considering only the extraction/synthesis of the raw materials of the Ni-doped

graphene battery.

Table 3. Energy inputs and outputs during the raw materials production of the Ni-

doped graphene battery

Ni-doped graphene battery

materials

Energy input,

electricity

(kWh)

Energy

output, heat

(MJ)

Porous nitrogen foam - -

Argon gas [48] - -

H2 gas - -

Pyridine (C5H5N) [49], [50] 0.15

(from grid) 0.54

(to air)

Germanium tetrachloride (GeCl4) [51] - -

Pure nitrogen plate - -

Hydrochloric acid (HCl) [50], [52] 0.33

(from grid)

1.2 (to air)

LiC6 [53] - -

TOTAL 0.48 1.74

The LiFePO4 nanocrystals-based Li-ion battery brings the following energy assets and

demand during the raw materials acquisition per battery produced [40].

Table 4. Energy inputs and outputs during the raw materials production of the

LiFePO4 nanocrystals-based Li-ion battery

12


Energy input Energy

output,

heat

(MJ) Electricity (kWh) Heat (MJ)

Lithium acetate dehydrate [50], [54]

- - -

Iron (III) acetylacetonate - - -

Tris (2-ethylhexyl) phosphate - - -

Oleic acid [45] - - -

Oleylamine [45] - - -

Manganese (II) acetylacetonate [45], [50], [55], [56]

0.22 (from grid)

0.20 (from oil)

0.612 (to air)

Iron (II) sulfate heptahydrate (FeSO4·7H2O) [57]

0.55 (from grid)

0.46 (from

natural gas)

1.8 (to air)

Ethylene glycol 0.38

(from grid) -

1.35 (to air)

Lithium hydroxide monohydrate (LiOH·H2O)

[58], [59] -

0.19 (from

biomass)

23 (to air)

Phosphoric acid (H3PO4) [50] 0.1 1.03

(from oil & natural gas)

1.18 (to air)

Citric acid - - -

Argon (Ar) gas - - -

Manganese sulfate (MnSO4·H2O)

0.22 (from grid)

0.20 (from oil)

0.612 (to air)

TOTAL 1.25 1.88 27.942

The SnO2 hollow nanostructures based Li-ion battery brings the following energy assets and demand during the raw materials acquisition per battery produced [40].

Table 5. Energy inputs and outputs during the raw materials production of the SnO2

hollow nanostructures based Li-ion battery


Energy input Energy

output,

heat (MJ) Electricity

(kWh)

Heat

(MJ)

SnSO4 0.333 2

(from furnace) 1.2

(to air)

13

Ethanol [60] 0.333 2

(from furnace) 1.2

(to air)

H2O - - -

TOTAL 0.666 4 2.4

The Fe3O4-based Cu Li-ion battery brings the following energy assets and demand

during the raw materials acquisition per battery produced [40], [50]:

Table 6. Energy inputs and outputs during the raw materials production of the Fe3O4-

based Cu Li-ion battery

Fe3O4-based Cu battery

materials

Energy input Energy

output,

heat (MJ) Electricity

(kWh)

Heat

(MJ)

CuSO4·5H2O 0.333 2

(from furnace) 1.2

(to air)

(NH4)2SO4 [61], [62] - - -

DETA - - -

Alumina membrane [63] - - -

SiC paper - 0.2 -

Alumina slurry [64] 0.1 - -

DI H2O 0.05 - -

Cellulose paper - - -

NaOH [65] 0.067 0.338 -

Tri-ethanol-amine - - -

TOTAL 0.55 2.538 1.2

The CNT-based Li-ion battery brings the following energy assets and demand during the raw materials acquisition per battery produced [40], [50].

Table 7. Energy inputs and outputs during the raw materials production of the CNT-

based Li-ion battery

CNT-based battery

materials

Energy input Energy

output,

heat

(MJ) Electricity (kWh) Heat (MJ)

Stainless steel foils [66], [67]

0.333 - -

14

Acetone [50], [68] 0.138

(from hydropower) 0.113

(from biomass) 29

(to air)

Isopropanol [50] 19.2 1 (from

natural gas) 69

(to air)

Aluminium buffer layer [69]–[72]

- - -

Iron chloride (FeCl3·6H2O) [50]

0.0186 - 0.067 (to air)

CH4/H2 gas mixture [73]

- 0.132

(from biomass) 23

(to air)

SiH4/H2 gas mixture [74]

- 0.132

(from biomass) 23

(to air)

TOTAL 19.6896 0.113 98.067

The emissions from all raw materials per battery option are analyzed in below. It has been considered that the truck used for transporting the raw materials have a weight of 15 ton, all batteries weights have weights from 5 to 20 kg, specific mass can be found in the references section.

Therefore, the 3D Ni-doped graphene foam with encapsulated Ge/Ni-doped

graphene-based Li-ion battery brings the following emissions (outputs) to the air,

water and soil during the materials acquisition per battery produced [8], [40].

Table 8. Emissions during the raw materials production of the 3D Ni-doped graphene foam with encapsulated Ge/Ni-doped graphene-based Li-ion battery


materials

Emissions

(g/kg-1)

Amount

(kg)

Emissions ×

amount (g)

Porous nitrogen foam - - -

Argon gas [48] - 0.014 -

H2 gas - - -

Pyridine (C5H5N) [49], [50]

108 CO2 from formaldehyde

(to air)

0.010

1.08

0.45 NOx from

formaldehyde (to air)

0.0045

0.31 methanol from

formaldehyde (to air)

0.0031

0.3 CO from formaldehyde

(to air) 0.003

15

Germanium tetrachloride (GeCl4) [51]

- 0.002 -

Pure nitrogen plate - - -

Hydrochloric acid (HCl) [50], [52]

8.8∙10-5 PM10 (to air)

0.04 3.52∙10-5

PM10 (to air)

LiC6 [53] - 100 -

The table above shows “-” when the value was negligible, unclear or unavailable.

PM10 refers only to particles emitted to the air during loading, unloading and drilling

of the material due to transportation.

The LiFePO4 nanocrystals-based Li-ion battery brings the following emissions

(outputs) to during the raw materials acquisition per battery produced [40].

Table 9. Emissions during the raw materials production of the LiFePO4 nanocrystals-

based Li-ion battery

LiFePO4 battery materials Emissions

(g/kg-1)

Amount

(kg)

Emissions ×

amount (g)

Lithium acetate dehydrate [50], [54]

20 CO2 (to air)

0.00001 0.0002 CO2

(to air)

Iron (III) acetylacetonate - 0.000005 -

Tris (2-ethylhexyl) phosphate - 0.000005 -

Oleic acid [45] - 0.00019 -

Oleylamine [45] - 0.00018 -

Manganese (II) acetylacetonate [45], [50], [55], [56]

8.67 CO from NaCl

(to air) 0.0000015

0.000013 CO from NaCl

(to air)

Iron (II) sulfate heptahydrate (FeSO4·7H2O) [57]

1 SO2 (to air)

0.00001

0.00001 SO2 (to air)

1 SO3 from CaCl2

(to air)

0.0013 SO3 from CaCl2 (to

air)

Ethylene glycol

5.8 NH3 from CaCl2 (to air)

0.0013

0.00754

900 Cl from CaCl2 (to water)

1.17

339 Ca from CaCl2 (to water)

0.4407

16

99.3 solid substances, unspecified

from CaCl2 (to water)

0.12909

0.05 P from CaCl2 (to water)

0.000065

Lithium hydroxide monohydrate (LiOH·H2O)

[58], [59]

1,000 H2 (to air)

0.00001

0.01

500 CaCO3 (to soil)

0.005

Phosphoric acid (H3PO4) [50]

125 CO2 from digestion (to air)

0.00001

0.00125

17 PM2.5-10 (to air)

0.00017

15 PM10 (to air)

0.00015

12 PM2.5 (to air)

0.00012

Citric acid - - -

Argon (Ar) gas - 0.014 -


1 SO2 (to air)

0.00001

0.00001 SO2 (to air)

1 SO3 (to air)

0.00001 SO3 (to air)

This battery also has been accounted in a current commercial version a carbon

footprint of 12.7 kg CO2eq for all the raw material they needed to produce one battery

[75].

The SnO2 hollow nanostructures based Li-ion battery brings the following emissions

(outputs) to during the materials acquisition per battery produced [40].

Table 10. Emissions during the raw materials production of the SnO2 hollow

nanostructures based Li-ion battery

SnO2 battery materials Emissions

(g/kg-1)

Amount

(kg)

Emissions ×

amount (g)

SnSO4 1,000 Cu (to soil)

0.0002 0.2 Cu (to soil)

Ethanol [60] 1,000 CO2

(to air) 0.23

230 CO2 (to air)

H2O - 0.1 -

17

The Fe3O4-based Cu Li-ion battery brings the following emissions (outputs) to during

the materials acquisition per battery produced [40], [50]:

Table 11. Emissions during the raw materials production of the Fe3O4-based Cu Li-

ion battery


materials

Emissions

(g/kg-1)

Amount

(kg)

Emissions ×

amount (g)

CuSO4·5H2O - - -

(NH4)2SO4 [61], [62] - - -

DETA - - -

Alumina membrane [63] - - -

SiC paper 2,000 CO

(to air) 0.001

2 CO (to air)

Alumina slurry [64] 0.5

(to water) 0.1

0.05 (to water)

DI H2O - - -

Cellulose paper - - -

NaOH [65]

25 chloride (to water)

0.8

20 chloride (to water)

15 sulphate (to water)

12 sulphate (to water)

4 chlorate (to water)

3.2 chlorate (to water)

1.5 free oxidants

(to water)

1.2 free oxidants (to

water)

0.55 bromate

(to water)

0.44 bromate (to

water)

0.03 asbestos

(to water)

0.024 asbestos (to

water)

0.0007 Hg (to water)

0.00056 Hg (to water)

5 CO2 (to air)

4 CO2 (to air)

1 H2 (to air)

0.8 H2 (to air)

0.016 chlorine (to air)

0.0128 chlorine (to air)

0.002 Hg (to air)

0.0016 Hg (to air)

18

Tri-ethanol-amine

2 di-ethanol-

amine (to air)

0.15

0.3 di-ethanol-

amine (to air)

The carbon nanotubes (CNTs) decorated with Si nanoparticles-based Li-ion battery

brings the following emissions (outputs) to during the raw materials acquisition per

battery produced [40]:

Table 12. Emissions during the raw materials production of the CNT-based Li-ion

battery

CNT battery materials Emissions

(g/kg-1)

Amount

(kg)

Emissions ×

amount (g)

Stainless steel foils [66], [67] 8,700 CO2

(to air) 0.04 43.5

Acetone [50], [68]

7.24 sulfate (to water)

0.005

0.0362

7.12 sodium, ion (to water)

0.0356

2.55 chloride (to water)

0.01275

1.18 solved solids (to water)

0.0059

29,000 heat (to air)

145

1,790 CO2, fossil

(to air) 8.95

17.1 CH4, fossil

(to air) 0.0855

6.87 SO2

(to air) 0.03435

4.59 NiOx

(to air) 0.02295

3.52 NMVOC (to air)

0.0176

19

2.75 CO2, biogenic

(to air) 0.01375

1.87 CO, fossil

(to air) 0.00935

Isopropanol [50]

0.2% propene (to air)

7.5 1.47

0.2% H2SO4 (to air)

11.45 2.29

2.75 CO2, fossil

(to air) 0.005 0.01375

35.38 propene (to water)

7.5 265.35

347.71 H2SO4 (to air)

11.45 3,981.28


9,700 - 18,300 CO2 from primary Al

(to air)

0.0005

4.85-9.15

600-900 CO2 from Al

foil rolls (to air)

0.3-0.45

500-600 CO2 from

shape casting (to air)

0.25-0.3

300-700 CO2 from extrusion (to air)

0.15-0.35

300 - 600 CO2 from

secondary Al (to air)

0.15-0.3


0.3 (to river)

4∙10-6

1.2∙10-6 (to the river)

0.067 (to air)

2.7∙10-7 (to air)

6 (to soil)

2.4∙10-5 (to soil)

20


10662.1 CO2 from H2 prod.

(to air)

0.000027

0.2878767

146.3 CH4 from H2 prod.

(to air)

26.3 NMHCs from H2 prod.

(to air) 0.0007101

9.7 SOx from H2 prod.

(to air) 0.0002619

5.9 CO from H2 prod.

(to air) 0.0001593

2 particulates from H2 prod.

(to air) 0.000054

1.4 C6H6 from H2 prod. (to air)

0.0000378

0.04 N2O from H2 prod.

(to air) 0.00000108


10662.1 CO2 from H2 prod.

(to air)

0.000027

0.2878767

146.3 CH4 from H2 prod.

(to air) 0.0039501

26.3 NMHCs from H2 prod.

(to air)

0.0007101

9.7 SOx from H2 prod.

(to air)

0.0002619

5.9 CO from H2 prod.

(to air)

0.0001593

2 particulates from H2 prod.

(to air) 0.000054

1.4 C6H6 from H2 prod. (to air)

0.0000378

21

0.04 N2O from H2 prod.

(to air) 0.00000108

Now, an analysis of the associated health risks with each of these materials is

performed in the following table by using the MSDS information available from

materials providers, primarily Sigma-Aldrich [76], [77].

Table 13. Safety information for the raw materials

Battery

options Materials

Hazard (H) and

prevention (P)

precautionary codes

Symbols


materials

Porous nitrogen foam

No data No data

Argon gas H280

P410 + P403 GHS04

H2 gas H220-H280

P210-P377-P381-P410 + P403

GHS02, GHS04

Pyridine (C5H5N)

H225-H302 + H312 + H332-H315-H319

P210-P261-P302 + P352 + P312-P304 + P340 + P312-P337 + P313-P403

+ P235

GHS02, GHS07

Germanium tetrachloride

(GeCl4)

H314-H330 P260-P280-P284-P305 +

P351 + P338-P310 GHS05, GHS06

Pure nitrogen plate

No data No data

Hydrochloric acid (HCl)

H290-H314-H335 P260-P280-P303 + P361 + P353-P304 + P340 + P310-P305 + P351 +

P338

GHS05, GHS07

LiC6 No data No data

22

LiFePO4 battery

materials

Lithium acetate dehydrate [50],

[54]

Not a hazardous or dangerous substance or mixture according to Regulation (EC) No.

1272/2008

-

Iron (III) acetylacetonate

H302-H319 P305 + P351 + P338

GHS07

Tris (2-ethylhexyl) phosphate


1272/2008

-

Oleic acid [45]


1272/2008

-

Oleylamine [45]

H302-H304-H314-H335-H373-H410

P260-P280-P301 + P310-P303 + P361 + P353-P304 + P340 + P310-P305 + P351 + P338

GHS05, GHS07, GHS08, GHS09

Manganese (II) acetylacetonate [45], [50], [55],

[56]

H302 + H312 + H332-H315-H319-H335-H351 P261-P280-P305 + P351

+ P338

GHS07, GHS08

Iron (II) sulfate heptahydrate

(FeSO4·7H2O) [57]

H302-H315-H319 P305 + P351 + P338

GHS07

Ethylene glycol H302-H373

P260-P301 + P312 + P330

GHS07, GHS08

Lithium hydroxide monohydrate

(LiOH·H2O) [58], [59]

H302-H314 P280-P305 + P351 +

P338-P310 GHS05, GHS07

23

Phosphoric acid (H3PO4) [50]

H290-H314 P280-P303 + P361 + P353-P304 + P340 + P310-P305 + P351 +

P338

GHS05

Citric acid H319

P280-P305 + P351 + P338-P337 + P313

GHS07

Argon gas H280

P410 + P403 GHS04


H373-H411 P273

GHS08, GHS09

SnO2 battery

materials

SnSO4

H290-H315-H317-H319-H332-H335-H341-H373-

H410 P260-P280-P305 + P351

+ P338

GHS05, GHS07, GHS08, GHS09

Ethanol [60]

H225-H319 P210-P305 + P351 +

P338-P370 + P378-P403 + P235

GHS02, GHS07

H2O


1272/2008

-


materials

CuSO4·5H2O H302-H315-H319-H410

P273-P305 + P351 + P338-P501

GHS07, GHS09

(NH4)2SO4 [61], [62]


1272/2008

-

DETA

H302 + H312-H314-H317-H330-H335

P260-P280-P284-P305 + P351 + P338-P310

GHS05, GHS06

24

Alumina membrane [63]


1272/2008

-

SiC paper


1272/2008

-

Alumina slurry [64]

No data No data

DI H2O


1272/2008

-

Cellulose paper No data No data

NaOH [65]

H290-H314 P260-P280-P303 + P361 + P353-P304 + P340 +

P310-P305 + P351 + P338

GHS05

Tri-ethanol-amine


1272/2008

-

CNT battery

materials

Stainless steel foils [66], [67]

No data No data

Acetone [50], [68]

H225-H319-H336 P210-P280-P304 + P340 + P312-P305 + P351 + P338-P337 + P313-P403

+ P235

GHS02, GHS07

Isopropanol [50]

H225-H319-H336 P210-P280-P305 + P351

+ P338-P337 + P313-P403 + P235

GHS02, GHS07


No data No data

25


H290-H302-H315-H318 P280-P301 + P312 + P330-P305 + P351 +

P338 + P310

GHS05, GHS07


H220-H280 P210-P377-P381-P410 +

P403 GHS02, GHS04


H220-H280 P210-P377-P381-P410 +

P403 GHS02, GHS04

3.1.2 Treatment of the raw materials and batteries production

It is very important to analyze all the different inputs and outputs of every type of battery proposed in every step of this report. Therefore, Table 14 brings a checklist about what needs to be addressed.

Table 14. Inputs and outputs analysis during the treatments of the raw materials

Batteries

production and

raw materials

treatment

Emissions

or waste Energy

Raw

materials

Health

risks

Social

impact


Minor Minor Input Minor Minor









Following the previously selected options to enhance the Li-ion batteries

performance, the following physical and chemical treatments are required during the

treatment of the raw materials. The treatments steps followed in the fabrication of

each battery are following the same order as in the table below.

Table 15. Physical and chemical fabrication steps

26

Battery options Physical and/or chemical treatments/steps


Carbon and nitrogen deposition into Ni foam by decomposing pyridine at 900 °C for 5 min in flowing Ar

(90%) /H2 (10%) gas mixture.

CVD of Ni-doped graphene

GeO2 nanoparticles deposition by using GeCl4 and load in 3D interconnected porous N-doped graphene network

with Ni foam (GeO2/NG-NF) matrix.

GeO2/NG-NF was then coated with a Ni thin layer using electroplating deposition.

Catalysis of GeO2@Ni/NG-NF nanoarchitecture for conformal Ni-doped graphene growth by CVD at 650 °C

for 2 min with Ar (90%) /H2 (10%) gas mixture.

Ge generation through the reduction of GeO2 and thermally annealing at 650 °C for 6 h in flowing Ar

(90%)/H2 (10%) gas mixture without pyridine.

Acid etching was used to remove the Ni foam and sacrificial layer to obtain the Ge-QD@NG/NGF yolk-shell

nanoarchitecture.


A solvothermal method in a 45-mL Teflon-lined autoclave at 180 °C for 10 h, with different ratios

and addition sequence of FeSO4, H3PO4 and LiOH

Solutions preparation by adding 4 mmol of FeSO4·7H2O and X mmol of LiOH·H2O (X = 12, 10, or 8) in 20 mL of

EG under ultrasonic dispersion for 15 min.

FeSO4·7H2O, LiOH·H2O solutions and H3PO4 mix in two different sequences

(Fe–PO4–Li and Li–PO4–Fe) in the autoclaves.

Deionized water and ethanol filtration and washing several times.

0.35 g of as-synthesized LiFePO4 nanocrystals were mixed with 0.04 g of sucrose (the weight ratio of

LiFePO4:sucrose is about 1:0.11 and LiFePO4:C is about 1:0.05) and ethanol to form a slurry, and the mixture was

then dried in a vacuum furnace at 50 °C for 0.5 h.

Calcination of the mixture in an Ar atmosphere at 300 °C for 0.5 h, and

27

Mixture heated to 550 °C for 2.5 h with a heating rate of 3 °C·min–1.


0.1−0.2 g of SnSO4 dissolved in 100 mL of deionized water.

Ultrasonication of the solution for several minutes.

Solution transference into a 130 mL Teflon-lined autoclave and maintained at 393 K for 48 h

Collection of the precipitate by centrifugation after being washed with distilled water and ethanol several times.

Product dried completely at 323 K.


Arrays of highly perpendicular copper nanopillars on

copper disk substrate (2 cm2, 150-μm thick, 99.9% Cu, Goodfellow) were fabricated by cathodic electrodeposition from an electrolytic bath consisting of CuSO4 ·5H2O 100 g L−1, (NH4)2SO4 20 g L−1 and diethyl-tri-amine 80mLL−1, inside the pores of an alumina oxide membrane, with an

Arbin BT2000 potentiostat/galvanostat.

Mechanical polishing of the cathode foil, first with SiC

paper then with 6, 3, 1 and 0.25-μm alumina slurry.

Copper nanopillars were covered with Fe3O4 by means of an electrodeposition process from an alkaline aqueous solution (pH=12.3) consisting of 2 M NaOH, 0.09 M

Fe2(SO4)3 ·5H2O (Alfa Aesar) complexed with 0.1M tri-ethanol-amine (Acros Organics).

The magnetite coating was produced under stirring at a constant current density (j=−5mAcm−2) using a three-

electrode cell set-up maintained at a fixed temperature of

50 ◦C.

Coin-type cells assembly in an argon-filled dry box using the copper nanopillar-Fe3O4 assembly as the positive electrode and the Li metal as the negative electrode.

Both positive and negative electrodes were electronically separated by a Whatman GF/D borosilicate glass-fibre sheet saturated with 1 M LiPF6 electrolyte solution (in EC:DMC/1:1 in mass ratio) purchased from Merck.


Growth of Vertically Aligned Carbon Nanotubes

synthesized by Hot‐Filament Chemical Vapour Deposition

(HF‐CVD) on 50 μm thick stainless-steel foils (Aldrich, AISI 321).

Steel substrates were copiously washed with acetone and isopropanol

28

Steel substrates covered by an aluminium buffer layer (20

nm) deposited by e‐beam evaporation.

Iron chloride deposited by spraying 30 mL FeCl3, 6H2O solution (5.10−4 mol L−1 in ethanol) over the foil heated at

120 °C.

From as‐deposited iron chloride salt, CNTs synthesis was

performed at 600 °C using CH4/H2 mixture (ΦH2 = 100

sccm, ΦSiH4 = 20 sccm) for 30 minutes. The pressure was set at 50 mbar.

VA‐CNTs silicon decoration was performed by CVD using

SiH4/H2 mixture (ΦH2 = 100 sccm, ΦSiH4 = 20 sccm) at 540 °C. The pressure was set at 50 mbar and synthesis

duration of 13 minutes.

There is no available information about the inputs and outputs in terms of materials

and energy for these processes. We assume the treatments are under controlled

conditions where the impact is minimized and therefore neglectable. Also, the main

source of emissions comes usually from the raw materials extraction, rather than the

treatments because most battery requires very small amounts of them.

3.1.3 Car production

The vehicle assemble, including the battery integration, is a very important part, and

however, it doesn’t discriminate between different types of batteries. To generalize,

we include the environmental impact of a battery EV since it’s the only fully

electrically powered EV [35], [78], [79]. Also, most car manufacturers doesn’t reveal

publicly the energy needs, outputs, social impact or potential health risks due to the

vehicle production. Therefore, only the gas emissions is a reliable factor to take into

the account during the LCA [80]. Although, the production of EV is not by default

cleaner or greener than the traditional gasoline cars. An estimation of an average car

production brings a 2,500 kg CO2 emissions for a 1,600 kg weight [81], [82]. This

shows that the contribution for the car production is the most important one during

the entire life-cycle, especially for heavy cars, and makes this step one of the most

urgent to improve.

3.1.4 Use of cars and recycling perspectives

This step is certainly subjective since not all users will have the same habits,

environmental awareness, heating/cooling needs due to local climate conditions and

the average driving patterns and distances. These are influencing factors that must be

included to perform a complete a rigorous LCA. To approach this stage we include a

model scenario which can represent an average European consumer. This

29

simplification is due to the fact that the report only involves a life-cycle assessment

for the cradle-to-gate subset of the full life cycle.

Assuming an average life expectancy of a car is 8 years or 150,000 km, globally, most

battery EV cars are made of aluminium chasees. And the energy consumption is highly

dependent on driving behaviour desired temperature, topography and type of road

[35]. Getting a consumption pattern as displayed in the following table.

Table 16. Summary of uses of car LCA energy consumption for three scenarios

Influencing factor Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C

Driving Behaviour Cautious Average Dynamic

Desired temperature Low Medium Medium

Topography Flat Hilly Hilly

Type of road City City Highway

Energy consumption

[kWh/100km] ~10 ~15 ~20

Finally, the last step of the life cycle of the battery should be integrated into the vehicle

for the full analysis. This step is important to understand how sustainable the batteries

are in terms of environment preservation. Depending on the final disposal of the

battery, the impact could be magnified or minimized.

30

4 Discussion

During the production of Li-ion batteries, there are different results depending on the

materials and chemicals used to craft the battery as shown in Chapter 3. Since one of

the most relevant emissions nowadays due to the climate change is the CO2,

comparing the different contribution from this and other GHGs could bring some

clear advantages or disadvantages among the studied options. In average, the CO2

emissions for currently available Li-ion batteries are 12.5 kg/kg [83], so for a standard

20 kg battery mass, the value would be 250 kg CO2 per Li-ion battery. Other authors

estimated a 150-200 kg CO2-eq/kWh greenhouse gasses emissions for the current

battery production.

With the batteries proposed in this report, we obtain the following table of net

emissions. The batteries production and assembling within a vehicle emissions are not

taking in account for each specific material. The following table uses the conversion

provided in Appendix B for representing the CO2-eq emissions.

Table 17. CO2 and GHG emissions from the studied batteries

Batteries production and raw

materials treatment

CO2 emissions

(kg)

GHG CO2-eq

emissions (kg)

Ni-doped graphene battery 0.0011 0.0011

LiFePO4 battery 0.0000019 0.0000019

SnO2 battery 0.23 0.23

Fe3O4-based Cu battery 0 0

CNT battery 0.063 0.064

Table 17 displays how the emissions in all batteries in terms of GWP remain almost

the same. This result means that the main gas that is contributing to the Green House

effect from all the type of batteries is CO2. Also, Table 17 shows that the least harmful

option is Fe3O4-based Cu battery with no negative impact to the atmosphere,

followed by a very small impact from the LiFePO4 battery. The option that

contributes most aggressively to the Green House effect is the SnO2 battery, which is

5 orders of magnitude bigger than the LiFePO4 battery. However, even this option is

still much more environmentally-friendly than current commercially available

batteries. Comparing all these options with the 250 kg CO2 per Li-ion battery and

150-200 kg CO2-eq introduced previously, it is clear that the new type of batteries

would lower the environmental damage caused by the battery production. The use of

EVs instead of gasoline vehicles can save near 60% of GHG in all or in most of the EU

Member States, depending on the estimated consumption of EVs [84].

31

In terms of energy savings and heat loss reduction, Figures 4, 5 and 6 summarize the

overall contribution of each battery in terms of heat and electricity inputs and heat

outputs.

Figure 4. Energy input, electricity (kWh), the comparison between battery options

Figure 4 shows that the battery with the lowest need for electrical inputs the Ni-doped

graphene battery, followed by Fe3O4-based Cu battery, and much higher for the CNT-

based battery.

Figure 5. Energy input, heat (MJ), the comparison between battery options

Figure 5 represents the heat input required for each battery, in which the best option

seems to be again the Ni-doped graphene battery. This graph is typically related to

external GHG emissions for heat generation.

0

4

8

12

16

20

Ni-dopedgraphenebattery

materials

LiFePO4 batterymaterials

SnO2 batterymateials

Fe3O4-basedCu batterymaterials

CNT-basedbattery

materials

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

Ni-dopedgraphene

battery materials

LiFePO4 batterymaterials


Fe3O4-based Cubattery materials

CNT-basedbattery materials

32

Figure 6. Energy output, heat (MJ), the comparison between battery options

Thirdly, the heat outputs are represented in Figure 6. This graph shows how the

Fe3O4-based Cu battery appears to have the smallest energy losses followed closely

again by the Ni-doped graphene battery.

In terms of the danger and hazardous impact of the substances contained in the

batteries, Figure 7 presents a clear description of how much potential risk can be

accounted in an industrial production per battery.

Figure 7. H&P codes and GHS symbols per battery (see Table 13)

It is clear to see from Figure 7 that the Ni-doped graphene, Fe3O4-based Cu and SnO2

batteries are the safest candidates to work with them during all the life-cycle in terms

of hazardous and potential risks. On the other hand, the most dangerous battery is the

LiFePO4 which paradoxically is the only one of the five options commercially available

0

20

40

60

80

100

Ni-dopedgraphenebattery

materials

LiFePO4battery

materials


Fe3O4-basedCu batterymaterials

CNT-basedbattery

materials

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

H P GHS02 GHS04 GHS05 GHS06 GHS07 GHS08 GHS09

Ni-doped graphene battery materials LiFePO4 battery materials

SnO2 battery materials Fe3O4-based Cu battery materials


33

[85]–[87]. Therefore, this analysis brings new findings to justify a different choice for

new improved battery via novel nanomaterials.

In order to perform a more detailed analysis, more available inventories and data

repositories need to be created for the materials treatments and battery/EV

production. Most the data used in this report comes from many different sources

which make the obtention of the final tables for subsequent analysis a complex and

long task along with less reliable than if having a more centralized source of data.

The methodology used in this report exclude any relevant contribution to the

emissions of materials and energy during the battery fabrication as suggested by others

[35], [78], [79]. A more detailed search and analysis should be carried out to

understand whether during the mass production of some additional sources of

environmental pollution play an important role or not.

During the results acquisition, calculations have been made to adapt some original

data to the context of our analysis. The transportation of the raw materials have not

been explicitly included in the final calculation, but just shortly mentioned. In a more

detailed life-cycle assessment this values should be introduced. However, the

information about the origin of the materials is uncertain or unknown for several of

them at the moment. This could be improved substantially if companies specified

more in detail the origin of every single reagent or component of any material

mentioned during this report. Moreover, the social impact of the batteries production

is highly unknown due to the unusual mix of materials and treatments. This aspect

also needs to be refined and address with reliable data if possible.

Finally, as we saw previously, the car production brings 2,500 kg CO2 emissions per

car. This value is several times of magnitude higher than any other step in the life-

cycle studied in this report. Hence, a more detailed analysis should be carried out to

find a way to reduce this contribution.

34

5 Conclusions and further research

This report has analyzed the cradle-to-gate LCA of five novel type of batteries for a

commercial implementation in order to reduce the environmental impact and

improving the battery performance at the same time. One of the main ideas found in

this report is that the Li-ion batteries are easily improved in terms of performance and

environmental impact by introducing novel advances nanomaterials. This can be

integrated into a mass production without big complications and can bring highly

valuable assets for the future of EVs. However, the environmental impact of the car

production remains an issue to address to ensure the overall impact remains

minimum.

The Ni-doped graphene battery and the Fe3O4-based Cu battery appeared to be the

most environmentally friendly, safe, stable, reliable and improved batteries among

the five cases of study. Between these two batteries, the lightest one, possible to

improve and under current development is the Ni-doped graphene battery which

would be the best option in the long term. While the Fe3O4-based Cu battery is better

understood and already developed in simpler versions commercially, so it is a more

reliable option in the short term.

The work carried in this report is very crucial to understand the added value of using

battery EV and shift to electromobility instead of keeping the old and highly polluting

transportation methods such as the gasoline cars. LCAs are a crucial tool to address

the environmental impact of any product that claims to be more environmentally-

friendly, such as the five proposed battery options of this report.

35

References

[1] B. Commission and others, “World commission on environment and development,” Our common Futur., 1987.

[2] C. Rosenzweig et al., “Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change,” Nature, vol. 453, p. 353, May 2008.

[3] M. M. Rojas-Downing, A. P. Nejadhashemi, T. Harrigan, and S. A. Woznicki, “Climate change and livestock: Impacts, adaptation, and mitigation,” Clim. Risk Manag., vol. 16, pp. 145–163, 2017.

[4] S. Singer, J.-P. Denruyter, and D. Yener, “The Energy Report: 100 % Renewable Energy by 2050 BT - Towards 100% Renewable Energy,” 2017, pp. 379–383.

[5] G. Masiero, M. H. Ogasavara, A. C. Jussani, and M. L. Risso, “The global value chain of electric vehicles: A review of the Japanese, South Korean and Brazilian cases,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 80, pp. 290–296, 2017.

[6] N. Jakobsson, T. Gnann, P. Plötz, F. Sprei, and S. Karlsson, “Are multi-car households better suited for battery electric vehicles? – Driving patterns and economics in Sweden and Germany,” Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol., vol. 65, pp. 1–15, 2016.

[7] P. G. Bruce, B. Scrosati, and J.-M. Tarascon, “Nanomaterials for Rechargeable Lithium Batteries,” Angew. Chemie Int. Ed., vol. 47, no. 16, pp. 2930–2946, Apr. 2008.

[8] R. Mo, D. Rooney, K. Sun, and H. Y. Yang, “3D nitrogen-doped graphene foam with encapsulated germanium/nitrogen-doped graphene yolk-shell nanoarchitecture for high-performance flexible Li-ion battery,” Nat. Commun., vol. 8, p. 13949, Jan. 2017.

[9] Z. Wang, L. Zhou, and X. W. (David) Lou, “Metal Oxide Hollow

Nanostructures for Lithium‐ion Batteries,” Adv. Mater., vol. 24, no. 14, pp. 1903–1911.

[10] A. Gohier et al., “High‐Rate Capability Silicon Decorated Vertically Aligned

Carbon Nanotubes for Li‐Ion Batteries,” Adv. Mater., vol. 24, no. 19, pp. 2592–2597.

[11] P. L. Taberna, S. Mitra, P. Poizot, P. Simon, and J.-M. Tarascon, “High rate capabilities Fe3O4-based Cu nano-architectured electrodes for lithium-ion battery applications,” Nat. Mater., vol. 5, p. 567, Jun. 2006.

[12] C. Julien, A. Mauger, A. Vijh, and K. Zaghib, Lithium batteries: science and technology. Springer, 2015.

[13] H. C. Hesse, M. Schimpe, D. Kucevic, and A. Jossen, “Lithium-Ion Battery Storage for the Grid—A Review of Stationary Battery Storage System Design Tailored for Applications in Modern Power Grids,” Energies, vol. 10, no. 12,

36

2017.

[14] T. Weitzel and C. H. Glock, “Energy management for stationary electric energy storage systems: A systematic literature review,” Eur. J. Oper. Res., vol. 264, no. 2, pp. 582–606, 2018.

[15] B. Nykvist and M. Nilsson, “Rapidly falling costs of battery packs for electric vehicles,” Nat. Clim. Chang., vol. 5, p. 329, Mar. 2015.

[16] Y. Duan et al., “Excess Li-Ion Storage on Reconstructed Surfaces of Nanocrystals To Boost Battery Performance,” Nano Lett., vol. 17, no. 10, pp. 6018–6026, Oct. 2017.

[17] J. Junyi et al., “Graphene‐Encapsulated Si on Ultrathin‐Graphite Foam as

Anode for High Capacity Lithium‐Ion Batteries,” Adv. Mater., vol. 25, no. 33, pp. 4673–4677.

[18] C. D. Wang, Y. S. Chui, Y. Li, X. F. Chen, and W. J. Zhang, “Binder-free Ge-three dimensional graphene electrodes for high-rate capacity Li-ion batteries,” Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 103, no. 25, p. 253903, 2013.

[19] J. Qin et al., “Graphene Networks Anchored with Sn@Graphene as Lithium Ion Battery Anode,” ACS Nano, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 1728–1738, 2014.

[20] S. S. Zhang, K. Xu, and T. R. Jow, “Charge and discharge characteristics of a commercial LiCoO2-based 18650 Li-ion battery,” J. Power Sources, vol. 160, no. 2, pp. 1403–1409, 2006.

[21] A. K. Padhi, K. S. Nanjundaswamy, and J. B. Goodenough, “Phospho‐

olivines as Positive‐Electrode Materials for Rechargeable Lithium Batteries,” J. Electrochem. Soc. , vol. 144, no. 4, pp. 1188–1194, Apr. 1997.

[22] A. Yamada et al., “Room-temperature miscibility gap in LixFePO4,” Nat. Mater., vol. 5, p. 357, Apr. 2006.

[23] J. Chen, “Recent Progress in Advanced Materials for Lithium Ion Batteries,” Materials (Basel)., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 156–183, 2013.

[24] L. X. W., W. Y., Y. C., L. J. Y., and A. L. A., “Template‐Free Synthesis of SnO2 Hollow Nanostructures with High Lithium Storage Capacity,” Adv. Mater., vol. 18, no. 17, pp. 2325–2329, Aug. 2006.

[25] S. M. Hussain, K. L. Hess, J. M. Gearhart, K. T. Geiss, and J. J. Schlager, “In vitro toxicity of nanoparticles in BRL 3A rat liver cells,” Toxicol. Vitr., vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 975–983, 2005.

[26] M. M. Thackeray, W. I. F. David, and J. B. Goodenough, “Structural characterization of the lithiated iron oxides LixFe3O4 and LixFe2O3 (0<x<2),” Mater. Res. Bull., vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 785–793, 1982.

[27] P. Poizot, S. Laruelle, S. Grugeon, L. Dupont, and J.-M. Tarascon, “Nano-sized transition-metal oxides as negative-electrode materials for lithium-ion

37

batteries,” Nature, vol. 407, p. 496, Sep. 2000.

[28] C. Jordi, M. Laure, L. Dominique, and P. M. Rosa, “Beyond Intercalation‐

Based Li‐Ion Batteries: The State of the Art and Challenges of Electrode Materials Reacting Through Conversion Reactions,” Adv. Mater., vol. 22, no. 35, pp. E170–E192.

[29] B. A. Boukamp, G. C. Lesh, and R. A. Huggins, “All‐Solid Lithium

Electrodes with Mixed‐Conductor Matrix,” J. Electrochem. Soc. , vol. 128, no. 4, pp. 725–729, Jan. 1981.

[30] M. N. Obrovac and L. J. Krause, “Reversible cycling of crystalline silicon powder,” J. Electrochem. Soc., vol. 154, no. 2, pp. A103–A108, 2007.

[31] P. Roy et al., “A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products,” J. Food Eng., vol. 90, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2009.

[32] M. A. Curran, “Life Cycle Assessment: a review of the methodology and its application to sustainability,” Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 273–277, 2013.

[33] International Organization for Standarization, ISO 14044: Environmental Management - Life Cycle Assessment - Requirements and Guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO, 2006.

[34] A. A. Pesaran, T. Markel, H. S. Tataria, and D. Howell, “Battery Requirements for Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles--analysis and Rationale,” 2009.

[35] P. Egede, T. Dettmer, C. Herrmann, and S. Kara, “Life Cycle Assessment of Electric Vehicles – A Framework to Consider Influencing Factors,” Procedia CIRP, vol. 29, pp. 233–238, 2015.

[36] M. Zackrisson, L. Avellán, and J. Orlenius, “Life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles – Critical issues,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 18, no. 15, pp. 1519–1529, 2010.

[37] J. Matheys and W. Van Autenboer, “SUBAT: sustainable batteries work package 5: overall assessment final public report,” Vrije Univ. Brussel, Brussels, 2005.

[38] A.-M. Tillman, T. Ekvall, H. Baumann, and T. Rydberg, “Choice of system boundaries in life cycle assessment,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 21–29, 1994.

[39] E. Cadena, “Definition of limits and functional units: LCA preparation,” 2014.

[40] “European reference Life Cycle Database,” Joint Research Centre, 2006. .

[41] “U.S. Life Cycle Inventory Database,” National Renewable EnergyLaboratory, 2012. .

38

[42] J. Chevalier and P. Rousseaux, “Classification in LCA: Building of a coherent family of criteria,” Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., vol. 4, no. 6, p. 352, Nov. 1999.

[43] N. Nitta, F. Wu, J. T. Lee, and G. Yushin, “Li-ion battery materials: present and future,” Mater. Today, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 252–264, 2015.

[44] A. Grimaud, “Batteries: Beyond intercalation and conversion,” Nat. Energy, vol. 2, p. 17003, Jan. 2017.

[45] J. Jiang, W. Liu, J. Chen, and Y. Hou, “LiFePO4 Nanocrystals: Liquid-Phase Reduction Synthesis and Their Electrochemical Performance,” ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces, vol. 4, no. 6, pp. 3062–3068, 2012.

[46] X. M. Yin et al., “One-Step Synthesis of Hierarchical SnO2 Hollow Nanostructures via Self-Assembly for High Power Lithium Ion Batteries,” J. Phys. Chem. C, vol. 114, no. 17, pp. 8084–8088, May 2010.

[47] L. Ji, Z. Lin, M. Alcoutlabi, and X. Zhang, “Recent developments in nanostructured anode materials for rechargeable lithium-ion batteries,” Energy Environ. Sci., vol. 4, no. 8, pp. 2682–2699, 2011.

[48] J. Emsley, Nature’s Building Blocks: An A-Z Guide to the Elements. Oxford University Press, 2011.

[49] F. Kroehnke, “The specific synthesis of pyridines and oligopyridines,” Synthesis (Stuttg)., vol. 1976, no. 01, pp. 1–24, 1976.

[50] H.-J. Althaus, M. Chudacoff, R. Hischier, N. Jungbluth, M. Osses, and A. Primas, “Life cycle inventories of chemicals,” Final Rep. ecoinvent data v2. 0 No, vol. 8, 2007.

[51] L. S. Foster, J. W. Drenan, and A. F. Williston, “Preparation of Germanium Tetrachloride, GeCl4,” J. Am. Chem. Soc., vol. 64, no. 12, p. 3042, Dec. 1942.

[52] J. B. Dunn, L. Gaines, M. Barnes, J. L. Sullivan, and M. Wang, “Material and energy flows in the materials production, assembly, and end-of-life stages of the automotive lithium-ion battery life cycle,” Argonne National Lab.(ANL), Argonne, IL (United States), 2014.

[53] R. L. Sacci, L. A. Adamczyk, G. M. Veith, and N. J. Dudney, “Dry Synthesis of Lithium Intercalated Graphite Powder and Fiber,” J. Electrochem. Soc. , vol. 161, no. 4, pp. A614–A619, Jan. 2014.

[54] Q. Dai and C. M. Lastoskie, “Life cycle assessment of natural gas-powered personal mobility options,” Energy & Fuels, vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 5988–5997, 2014.

[55] R. M. Pike, M. M. Singh, and Z. Szafran, “Microscale Inorganic Chemistry: A Comprehensive Laboratory Experience,” 1991.

[56] C. R. G., H. S. N., and F. W. Conard, “Manganese(II) Acetylacetonate,” in Inorganic Syntheses, Wiley-Blackwell, 2007, pp. 164–166.

39

[57] M. G. Papich, “Ferrous Sulfate,” in Saunders Handbook of Veterinary Drugs (Fourth Edition), Fourth Edition., M. G. Papich, Ed. St. Louis: W.B. Saunders, 2016, pp. 322–323.

[58] W. Ulrich and B. R. J., “Lithium and Lithium Compounds,” in Ullmann’s Encyclopedia of Industrial Chemistry, American Cancer Society, 2000.

[59] N. Chen, E. Zhou, D. Duan, and X. Yang, “Mechanochemistry synthesis of high purity lithium carbonate,” Korean J. Chem. Eng., vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 2748–2755, 2017.

[60] H. S. Kheshgi and R. C. Prince, “Sequestration of fermentation CO2 from ethanol production,” Energy, vol. 30, no. 10, pp. 1865–1871, 2005.

[61] S. Guido, “Integrated Life-cycle and risk assessment for industrial processes.” Lewis Publishers, New York, 2003.

[62] G. Sonnemann, F. Castells, M. Schuhmacher, and M. Hauschild, “Integrated life-cycle and risk assessment for industrial processes,” Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 206–207, 2004.

[63] J. J. Kingsley and K. C. Patil, “A novel combustion process for the synthesis

of fine particle α-alumina and related oxide materials,” Mater. Lett., vol. 6, no. 11, pp. 427–432, 1988.

[64] V. Meille, S. Pallier, and P. Rodriguez, “Reproducibility in the preparation of alumina slurries for washcoat application—Role of temperature and particle size distribution,” Colloids Surfaces A Physicochem. Eng. Asp., vol. 336, no. 1, pp. 104–109, 2009.

[65] E. U. RAR, “European Union Risk Assessment Report Sodium Hydroxide,” Off. Off., 2007.

[66] M. Mistry, J. Gediga, and S. Boonzaier, “Life cycle assessment of nickel products,” Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 1559–1572, 2016.

[67] R. L. Milford, S. Pauliuk, J. M. Allwood, and D. B. Mu ̈ller, “The roles of energy and material efficiency in meeting steel industry CO2 targets,” Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 3455–3462, 2013.

[68] R. Frischknecht et al., “Overview and methodology. Data v2. 0 (2007). Ecoinvent report No. 1,” Ecoinvent centre, 2007.

[69] J. Schmidt and M. Thrane, “Life cycle assessment of aluminium production in new Alcoa smelter in Greenland,” 2009.

[70] K. Steen-Olsen, “Environmental Assessment of Aluminium Production in Europe: Current Situation and Future Scenarios.” Institutt for energi-og prosessteknikk, 2009.

[71] G. Liu and D. B. Müller, “Addressing sustainability in the aluminum industry: a critical review of life cycle assessments,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 35, pp. 108–117, 2012.

40

[72] J. A. S. Green, Aluminum recycling and processing for energy conservation and sustainability. ASM International, 2007.

[73] C. Koroneos, A. Dompros, G. Roumbas, and N. Moussiopoulos, “Life cycle assessment of hydrogen fuel production processes,” Int. J. Hydrogen Energy, vol. 29, no. 14, pp. 1443–1450, 2004.

[74] S. Gerbinet, S. Belboom, and A. Léonard, “Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) of photovoltaic panels: A review,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 38, pp. 747–753, 2014.

[75] Y. Liang et al., “Life cycle assessment of lithium-ion batteries for greenhouse gas emissions,” Resour. Conserv. Recycl., vol. 117, pp. 285–293, 2017.

[76] Safety signs and signals. The Health and Safety Regulations 1996. Guidance on Regulations, L64, Third ed. HSE Books, 2015.

[77] U. N. E. C. for E. Secretariat, Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals (GHS). United Nations Publications, 2009.

[78] A. Nordelöf, M. Messagie, A.-M. Tillman, M. Ljunggren Söderman, and J. Van Mierlo, “Environmental impacts of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and battery electric vehicles—what can we learn from life cycle assessment?,” Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 1866–1890, 2014.

[79] H. T. R., S. Bhawna, M.-B. Guillaume, and S. A. Hammer, “Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles,” J. Ind. Ecol., vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 53–64, Oct. 2012.

[80] R. Nealer, D. Reichmuth, and D. Anair, “Cleaner cars from cradle to grave: How electric cars beat gasoline cars on lifetime global warming emissions,” Union concerned Sci. Rep., 2015.

[81] A. C. Serrenho, J. B. Norman, and J. M. Allwood, “The impact of reducing car weight on global emissions: the future fleet in Great Britain,” Philos. Trans. A. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., vol. 375, no. 2095, p. 20160364, Jun. 2017.

[82] H. C. Kim and T. J. Wallington, “Life-Cycle Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emission Benefits of Lightweighting in Automobiles: Review and Harmonization,” Environ. Sci. Technol., vol. 47, no. 12, pp. 6089–6097, Jun. 2013.

[83] J. L. Sullivan and L. Gaines, “A review of battery life-cycle analysis: state of knowledge and critical needs.,” Argonne National Lab.(ANL), Argonne, IL (United States), 2010.

[84] A. Moro and L. Lonza, “Electricity carbon intensity in European Member States: Impacts on GHG emissions of electric vehicles,” Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ., 2017.

[85] “12,8 Volt Lithium-Iron-Phosphate Batteries,” Victron Energy. .

[86] “Lithium Iron Phosphate Battery Suppliers and Manufacturers,” 2014.

41

[Online]. Available: Alibaba.com.

[87] A. Eftekhari, “LiFePO4/C nanocomposites for lithium-ion batteries,” J. Power Sources, vol. 343, pp. 395–411, 2017.

[88] M. Meinshausen et al., “Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 C,” Nature, vol. 458, no. 7242, p. 1158, 2009.

42

Appendix A: MSDS symbols and GHS- codes definitions

Substances can be extremely dangerous, even in small doses and therefore it is

important to understand the potential damage that can be generated by them across

the LCA. Due to this big health and environmental potential risk, there is an

international standardized convention of hazard and prevention pictograms and codes

to inform any user of the potential damage of most substances, this is displayed in

Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1. Pictograms of hazardous substances [76]

Description Pictogram Hazard class and hazard category

Exploding Bomb

GHS01

Unstable explosives Explosives of Divisions 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 Self-reactive substances and mixtures, Types A,B Organic peroxides, Types A,B

Flame GHS02

Flammable gases, category 1 Flammable aerosols, categories 1,2 Flammable liquids, categories 1,2,3 Flammable solids, categories 1,2 Self-reactive substances and mixtures, Types B,C,D,E,F Pyrophoric liquids, category 1 Pyrophoric solids, category 1 Self-heating substances and mixtures, categories 1,2 Substances and mixtures, which in contact with water, emit flammable gases, categories 1,2,3 Organic peroxides, Types B,C,D,E,F

Flame Over Circle GHS03

Oxidizing gases, category 1 Oxidizing liquids, categories 1,2,3

Gas Cylinder GHS04

Corrosive to metals, category 1 Skin corrosion, categories 1A,1B,1C Serious eye damage, category 1

43

Corrosion GHS05

Corrosive to metals, category 1 Skin corrosion, categories 1A,1B,1C Serious eye damage, category 1

Skull and Crossbones

GHS06

Acute toxicity (oral, dermal, inhalation), categories 1,2,3

Exclamation Mark

GHS07

Acute toxicity (oral, dermal, inhalation), category 4 Skin irritation, category 2 Eye irritation, category 2 Skin sensitization, category 1 Specific Target Organ Toxicity – Single exposure, category 3

Health Hazard GHS08

Respiratory sensitization, category 1 Germ cell mutagenicity, categories 1A,1B,2 Carcinogenicity, categories 1A,1B,2 Reproductive toxicity, categories 1A,1B,2 Specific Target Organ Toxicity – Single exposure, categories 1,2 Specific Target Organ Toxicity – Repeated exposure, categories 1,2 Aspiration Hazard, category 1

Environment

GHS09

Hazardous to the aquatic environment - Acute hazard, category1 - Chronic hazard, categories 1,2

The risk descriptors for the health and safety labels (H and P codes) are provided in

the literature and easily found in any safety lab guide across the globe [76], [77].

44

Appendix B: GHG / Kyoto gases and GWP

A greenhouse gas (GHG) is a gas in the atmosphere which absorbs heat from the

surface of the Earth and re‐emits it to space and back to the Earth. The heat or infrared

light from the Earth’s surface has its origin in the sunlight which trespasses the

atmosphere without being absorbed and hits directly the Earth’s surface. Then, the

only way this energy can be reemitted is in an infrared light form, which propagates

easily through the air until finding the GHG and starting the greenhouse effect

process. This mechanism keeps the planet’s atmosphere warmer and it’s the reason

why life exists on the planet. However, a too strong greenhouse effect can also erase

all the living organisms forever. The main GHGs in the Earth’s atmosphere are water

vapour, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and ozone.

Human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels, are increasing the levels of GHG’s

in the atmosphere, causing an anthropogenic global warming and the climate

change. The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty for controlling the emissions

of GHGs from human activities, as shown in Table 1 below. Often these GHGs are

referred to as the “Kyoto gases”

Table 1. GHG - Kyoto Gases (IPCC 2007) [88]

Greenhouse gas Global Warming Potential (GWP)

Carbon Dioxide, CO2 1

Methane, CH4 25

Nitrous oxide, N2O 298

Hydrofluorocarbons, HFCs 124 - 14,800

Perfluorocarbons, PFCs 7,390 – 12,200

Nitrogen trifluoride, NF3 17,200

Sulfur hexafluoride, SF6 22,800

Date post:	03-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

Cradle-to-gate life-cycle assessment of future materials...

Documents