IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jeners/v17y2024i11p2544-d1401281.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reuse of Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiFePO 4 ) Batteries from a Life Cycle Assessment Perspective: The Second-Life Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Giuliana Vinci

    (Department of Management, Sapienza University of Rome, Via del Castro Laurenziano 9, 00161 Rome, Italy)

  • Vittorio Carobene Arangia

    (AzzeroCO2, Via Genova 23, 00184 Rome, Italy)

  • Roberto Ruggieri

    (Department of Management, Sapienza University of Rome, Via del Castro Laurenziano 9, 00161 Rome, Italy)

  • Marco Savastano

    (Department of Management, Sapienza University of Rome, Via del Castro Laurenziano 9, 00161 Rome, Italy)

  • Marco Ruggeri

    (Department of Management, Sapienza University of Rome, Via del Castro Laurenziano 9, 00161 Rome, Italy)

Abstract

As of 2035, the European Union has ratified the obligation to register only zero-emission cars, including ultra-low-emission vehicles (ULEVs). In this context, electric mobility fits in, which, however, presents the critical issue of the over-exploitation of critical raw materials (CRMs). An interesting solution to reduce this burden could be the so-called second life, in which batteries that are no longer able to guarantee high performance in vehicles are used for other applications that do not require high performance, such as so-called stationary systems, effectively avoiding new over-exploitation of resources. In this study, therefore, the environmental impacts of second-life lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO 4 ) batteries are verified using a life cycle perspective, taking a second life project as a case study. The results show how, through the second life, GWP could be reduced by −5.06 × 10 1 kg CO 2 eq/kWh, TEC by −3.79 × 10 0 kg 1.4 DCB eq/kWh, HNCT by −3.46 × 10 0 kg 1.4 DCB eq/kWh, −3.88 × 10 0 m 2 a crop eq/kWh, and −1.12 × 10 1 kg oil eq/kWh. It is further shown how second life is potentially preferable to other forms of recycling, such as hydrometallurgical and pyrometallurgical recycling, as it shows lower environmental impacts in all impact categories, with environmental benefits of, for example, −1.19 × 10 1 kg CO 2 eq/kWh (compared to hydrometallurgical recycling) and −1.50 × 10 1 kg CO 2 eq/kWh (pyrometallurgical recycling), −3.33 × 10 2 kg 1.4 DCB eq/kWh (hydrometallurgical), and −3.26 × 10 2 kg 1.4 DCB eq/kWh (pyrometallurgical), or −3.71 × 10 0 kg oil eq/kWh (hydrometallurgical) and −4.56 × 10 0 kg oil eq/kWh (pyrometallurgical). By extending the service life of spent batteries, it may therefore be possible to extract additional value while minimizing emissions and the over-exploitation of resources.

Suggested Citation

  • Giuliana Vinci & Vittorio Carobene Arangia & Roberto Ruggieri & Marco Savastano & Marco Ruggeri, 2024. "Reuse of Lithium Iron Phosphate (LiFePO 4 ) Batteries from a Life Cycle Assessment Perspective: The Second-Life Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(11), pages 1-19, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:11:p:2544-:d:1401281
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/11/2544/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/17/11/2544/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Luigi Toro & Emanuela Moscardini & Ludovica Baldassari & Flavia Forte & Ilario Falcone & Jacopo Coletta & Lorenzo Toro, 2023. "A Systematic Review of Battery Recycling Technologies: Advances, Challenges, and Future Prospects," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-24, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maria Fotopoulou & Panagiotis Pediaditis & Niki Skopetou & Dimitrios Rakopoulos & Sotirios Christopoulos & Avraam Kartalidis, 2024. "A Review of the Energy Storage Systems of Non-Interconnected European Islands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-24, February.
    2. Zhihong Liu & Tuo Zhou & Hairui Yang & Zhong Huang & Yaning Zhang & Man Zhang, 2023. "A Review of the Resourceful Utilization Status for Decommissioned Power Batteries," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-17, December.

    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:gam:jeners:v:17:y:2024:i:11:p:2544-:d:1401281. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.