Author
Listed:
- Florian Degen
- Miriam Mitterfellner
- Achim Kampker
Abstract
The transition toward electrification of transportation has resulted in a rapid increase in the demand for battery cells. While this demand is currently being met through the use of lithium‐ion batteries (LIBs), alternative batteries like sodium‐ion batteries (SIBs) and solid‐state batteries (SSBs) are emerging as relevant alternatives. In this study, we analyze, based on current electric vehicle electrode stack designs, the environmental impact of LIB cells, SIB cells, and SSB cells. The life cycle assessment results from this cradle‐to‐gate study show that for LIB cell production today, ∼58–92 kgCO2‐eq are emitted per kWhcell and ∼296–624 kWhCED/kWhcell of primary energy is required. In SIB cell production, ∼75–87 kgCO2‐eq/kWhcell is emitted, and in SSB cell production, ∼88–130 kgCO2‐eq/kWhcell, depending on their specific electrode stack configuration. The results demonstrate that LFP (lithium–iron–phosphate) cells require the least energy for production across all battery types under analysis. Furthermore, the findings indicate that, in terms of global warming potential (GWP), LFP and NMC900 (nickel–manganese–cobalt) cells are the most sustainable battery types, at least when focusing solely on battery cell production and neglecting subsequent use phases. Furthermore, it is demonstrated that by optimizing the cell designs and their production, the environmental impact of battery cell production can be reduced in the short term by up to −38%. This allows the production of LFP battery cells with a low GWP of ∼37 kgCO2‐eq/kWhcell and NMC900 cells with ∼44 kgCO2‐eq/kWhcell. Moreover, there is considerable room for improvement in other major LIB cell types. This article met the requirements for a gold‐gold JIE data openness badge described at http://jie.click/badges.
Suggested Citation
Florian Degen & Miriam Mitterfellner & Achim Kampker, 2025.
"Comparative life cycle assessment of lithium‐ion, sodium‐ion, and solid‐state battery cells for electric vehicles,"
Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 29(1), pages 113-128, February.
Handle:
RePEc:bla:inecol:v:29:y:2025:i:1:p:113-128
DOI: 10.1111/jiec.13594
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:inecol:v:29:y:2025:i:1:p:113-128. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1088-1980 .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.